From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lancaster v. Kindor

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 28, 1985
65 N.Y.2d 804 (N.Y. 1985)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming dismissal of malicious prosecution claim as time-barred by one-year limitations period

Summary of this case from Voluntary Benefit Systems, Inc. v. Israel
See 1 Summary

Opinion

Argued June 4, 1985

Decided June 28, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Joseph Modugno, J.

Mia Lancaster, appellant-respondent pro se. Matthew A. Tedone and Martin S. Rothman for respondent-appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated in the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division ( 98 A.D.2d 300).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, ALEXANDER, TITONE and BOOMER. Taking no part: Judge KAYE.

Designated pursuant to N Y Constitution, article VI, § 2.

Summaries of

Lancaster v. Kindor

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 28, 1985
65 N.Y.2d 804 (N.Y. 1985)

affirming dismissal of malicious prosecution claim as time-barred by one-year limitations period

Summary of this case from Voluntary Benefit Systems, Inc. v. Israel
Case details for

Lancaster v. Kindor

Case Details

Full title:MIA LANCASTER, Appellant-Respondent, v. TYRONE KINDOR, Respondent-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 28, 1985

Citations

65 N.Y.2d 804 (N.Y. 1985)
493 N.Y.S.2d 127
482 N.E.2d 923

Citing Cases

Ward v. Kaufman

Under the circumstances, an order should be entered, nunc pro tunc, permitting the late filing of affidavits…

Voluntary Benefit Systems, Inc. v. Israel

Under New York law, a claim for malicious prosecution must be brought within one year after that prosecution…

23 Citing Cases