Zarintash v. Kopple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zarintash v. Kopple

234 A.D.2d 105, 650 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 105 (Zarintash v. Kopple) 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

Zarintash v. Kopple, 234 A.D.2d 105, 650 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about November 6, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[106]*106In opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff submitted letters dated prior to the expiration of the limitations period which bear defendant’s signature and acknowledge her intent to repay the subject debts. These letters were properly considered by the motion court absent any direct denial of authorship by defendant in her reply papers (cf., Szajna v Rand, 75 AD2d 617). Since they raise issues of fact as to the applicability of the Statute of Limitations (General Obligations Law § 17-101), summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about November 6, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[106]*106In opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff submitted letters dated prior to the expiration of the limitations period which bear defendant’s signature and acknowledge her intent to repay the subject debts. These letters were properly considered by the motion court absent any direct denial of authorship by defendant in her reply papers (cf., Szajna v Rand, 75 AD2d 617). Since they raise issues of fact as to the applicability of the Statute of Limitations (General Obligations Law § 17-101), summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 105, 650 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zarintash-v-kopple-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack