From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DiMaggio v. DiMaggio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 8, 2000.

December 6, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 12, 1999, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5).

Anthony M. Bramante, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Eaton Torrenzano, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Craig A. Eaton of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, as there are factual issues as to when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged wrongdoing (see, Gingold v. Beekman, 183 A.D.2d 870; Azoy v. Fowler, 57 A.D.2d 541).


Summaries of

DiMaggio v. DiMaggio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

DiMaggio v. DiMaggio

Case Details

Full title:VINCENZO DiMAGGIO, RESPONDENT, v. ANTONIO DiMAGGIO, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Feinberg v. Shaw

A fraud claim brought within six years of when "plaintiffs had sufficient facts to discover the alleged…