From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russo v. Huntington Town House, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 15, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff's Civil Rights Law action was barred by the applicable one-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 215; Civil Rights Law §§ 50, 51). Although the defendant's alleged wrongful use of the plaintiff's picture began several years before the commencement of the action, the complaint alleges that the defendant's improper actions have continued "to the present time". Inasmuch as the plaintiff commenced her action within one year of the defendant's most recent alleged violations of the Civil Rights Law, the defendant's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred was properly denied. We note, as the plaintiff concedes, that the extent of the plaintiff's recovery, if any, is limited to damages allegedly sustained during the one-year period which immediately preceded the service of her summons. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Russo v. Huntington Town House, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Russo v. Huntington Town House, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DIANE RUSSO, Respondent, v. HUNTINGTON TOWN HOUSE, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 883

Citing Cases

Nussenzweig v. Philip-Lorca

Tom, J.P., and Malone, J., concur in a separate memorandum by Tom, J.P., as follows: This controversy over a…

Tornheim v. Federal Home Loan Mortg.

The Court need not address whether the facts of this case state a claim under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51…