From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1997
244 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 19, 1997

(Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is time-barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations governing breach of contract actions ( see, CPLR 213). The cause of action for breach of contract accrued at the time of the breach ( see, Ely-Cruikshank Co. v. Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y.2d 399, 402), i.e., when defendant terminated life insurance coverage for plaintiff's decedent in June 1988, allegedly in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. This action was not commenced until more than seven years later. Plaintiff's reliance on Kelly v. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. ( 186 N.Y. 16) and Thompson v. Postal Life Ins. Co. ( 226 N.Y. 363) is misplaced. In those cases, the actions were against the insurers for payment of insurance proceeds, while this is an action against an employer for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement requiring it to maintain life insurance coverage. In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions of the parties.


Summaries of

LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1997
244 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls

Case Details

Full title:BURNADETTE J. LaGRECA, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

Kreutzer v. E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist.

The present action is not against an insurer for payment of insurance proceeds, but rather is against an…

Hahn Automotive v. American Zurich Ins. Co.

It is well settled that "[t]he [s]tatute of limitations begins to run once a cause of action accrues (CPLR…