Summary
denying motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds where "issue of fact was raised" about whether the applicable period was extended
Summary of this case from Lentini v. William Capital Assocs.Opinion
March 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
Plaintiff's action to recover on a promissory note, which was not commenced until 1993, was dismissed by the IAS Court as time barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213; UCC 3-122 ), because the demand note was executed in 1986.
However, there was an issue of fact raised as to whether the periodic payments and borrowings against the loan, payments of interest, and repayments of principal took place within six years of the commencement of this action and might serve to extend the Statute of Limitations. Further, an issue of fact was raised as to whether defendant acknowledged her debt to plaintiff in a March 1992 financial statement, which would also extend the limitations period.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.