From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marino v. Proch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1999
258 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 22, 1999

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff's cause of action accrued on October 22, 1993, when he allegedly was injured as the result of a motor vehicle accident ( see, Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 84 N.Y.2d 535). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the applicable Statute of Limitations expired three years later on the anniversary date of the accident, October 22, 1996 ( see, CPLR 214 N.Y.C.P.L.R. [5]; Evans v. Hawker-Siddeley Aviation, 482 F. Supp. 547; Furey v. Milgrom, 44 A.D.2d 91; Siegel, N Y Prac § 34, at 39 [2d ed]). Since this action was commenced by filing on October 23, 1996, it was time-barred and must be dismissed.

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marino v. Proch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1999
258 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Marino v. Proch

Case Details

Full title:NEIL MARINO, Respondent, v. DENISE PROCH et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 22, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 761

Citing Cases

RODRIGUEZ v. SAAL

Lastly, plaintiffs' inartfully pleaded wrongful death claim is governed by the two year limitations period…

Rivera v. City of N.Y.

While generally, an action cannot be commenced after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations…