From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Westreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 1995
213 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

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.


Summaries of

Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Westreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 1995
213 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

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.
Case details for

Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Westreich

Case Details

Full title:MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. SHIRA S…

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

Date published: Mar 14, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 8

Citing Cases

Lentini v. William Capital Assocs.

As such, the Amended Complaint will not be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. See Endervelt v.…

KRAMER LEVIN v. METRO. 919

(See generally, Bayridge Air Rights v Blitman Constr. Corp., 80 NY2d 777 [1992]; Slayback v Alexander, 179…