From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brands v. Sperduti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 17, 1974
43 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Opinion

January 17, 1974

Appeal from the Erie Special Term.

Present — Goldman, P.J., Marsh, Moule, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: There is no evidence in the record that defendant made any representation or engaged in a course of conduct which led plaintiff to believe it would be unnecessary to commence litigation in order to settle plaintiff's claim or that if litigation were commenced, the Statute of Limitations would not be pleaded in bar. Absent such evidence in the record, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 50-i Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law, should have been granted. Robinson v. City of New York ( 24 A.D.2d 260), upon which plaintiff relies, is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Robinson the parties entered into a written stipulation adjourning an examination before trial and postponing trial until the completion of the examination. No such extenuating circumstances are present in the record before us.


Summaries of

Brands v. Sperduti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 17, 1974
43 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)
Case details for

Brands v. Sperduti

Case Details

Full title:JOHN A. BRANDS, Respondent-Appellant, v. EUGENE T. SPERDUTI et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 1974

Citations

43 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Citing Cases

Zappie v. Perry

Plaintiffs also rely upon Robinson v. City of New York (24 AD2d 260, 263 [1st Dept 1965] ), which is…

Sokal v. Cap. Dist. Reg. Off-Track Betting

Plaintiff commenced this action one year and 168 days after she slipped and fell on ice and snow at the OTB…