Hayes v. International Bus. Machines Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Liverpool v. Xerox Corporation

    242 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

    Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred as to the defendant Xerox Corporation since the plaintiff's symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years prior to the commencement of this action ( see, CPLR 214; Badillo v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 553; Hayes v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 254). Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

  2. Hartman v. Intnl. Business Machines Corp.

    240 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs. The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Dell Computer Corporation (hereinafter Dell) and Brother International Corporation as time-barred, where the injured plaintiff's symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years previous to the commencement of this action ( see, CPLR 214; Badillo v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 553; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 254). Moreover, the complaint, insofar as asserted against Dell, fails to state a cause of action, where the plaintiff Audrey Hartman's injuries occurred more than three years previous to her use of Dell's products ( see, Edmond v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 238 A.D.2d 303). Bracken, J.P., Thompson, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

  3. Badillo v. International Business Machines

    237 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs. The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellants as time-barred, since the injured appellant's symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years previous to the commencement of this action ( see, CPLR 214; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 254]).