Siagha v. Salant-Jerome, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siagha v. Salant-Jerome, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 11, 671 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3507

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 11 (Siagha v. Salant-Jerome, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siagha v. Salant-Jerome, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 11, 671 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 17, 1997, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, which alleges that plaintiff was attacked by defendant bar’s employee during business hours with a pipe that was kept in plain view behind the bar, could be construed to state a cause of action for negligent supervision governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations for negligence, not the one-year Statute for assault. Defendant’s claim that it was never served must be rejected as the only affidavit offered in support thereof is neither signed nor notarized. And, like the IAS Court, we discern no prejudice resulting from plaintiff’s misnomer of defendant in his motion for a default judgment. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 17, 1997, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, which alleges that plaintiff was attacked by defendant bar’s employee during business hours with a pipe that was kept in plain view behind the bar, could be construed to state a cause of action for negligent supervision governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations for negligence, not the one-year Statute for assault. Defendant’s claim that it was never served must be rejected as the only affidavit offered in support thereof is neither signed nor notarized. And, like the IAS Court, we discern no prejudice resulting from plaintiff’s misnomer of defendant in his motion for a default judgment. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 11, 671 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siagha-v-salant-jerome-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack