Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga

55 A.D.2d 948, 391 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10239

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 948 (Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga) 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

Sleepy Hollow Produce Growers, Inc. v. Kosuga, 55 A.D.2d 948, 391 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 29, 1976, which, inter alia, granted defendant Kosuga’s motion for leave to serve an amended [949]*949answer and for partial summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs allege that in October, 1968 respondent fraudulently induced them to indorse a short-term note and that the fraud was not discovered until March 28, 1969. •Plaintiffs commenced this action on or about March 23, 1975. The fifth cause of action, alleging fraud, is barred by the Statute of Limitations (see CPLR 203, subd [f]; 213, subd 8). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 29, 1976, which, inter alia, granted defendant Kosuga’s motion for leave to serve an amended [949]*949answer and for partial summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs allege that in October, 1968 respondent fraudulently induced them to indorse a short-term note and that the fraud was not discovered until March 28, 1969. •Plaintiffs commenced this action on or about March 23, 1975. The fifth cause of action, alleging fraud, is barred by the Statute of Limitations (see CPLR 203, subd [f]; 213, subd 8). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 948, 391 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sleepy-hollow-produce-growers-inc-v-kosuga-nyappdiv-1977.