From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McManus v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 10, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about December 16, 1998, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Gerald P. Dwyer, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John J. McKenna, for defendant-respondent.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, RUBIN, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ.


While the motion court erred in determining as a matter of law that the estate of Janet McManus was entitled to the benefit of the exemption for owners of single family dwellings set forth inLabor Law § 240 Lab.(1), since there are issues of fact as to whether the McManus premises upon which plaintiff was at work at the time of his accident were commercial or residential in nature (see,Bartoo v. Buell, 87 N.Y.2d 362; Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644), the court nonetheless correctly determined that plaintiffs' proposed claims against the Estate of Janet McManus were barred by the Statute of Limitations and that they would not relate back to the date when the summons and complaint were first filed (see, CPLR 210 N.Y.CPLR(b), 214; see also, Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

McManus v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

McManus v. McManus

Case Details

Full title:JAMES V. McMANUS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOHN T. McMANUS…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

17 E. 96th Owners v. Madison 96th Assoc., LLC

While leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted (Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 934;see CPLR…