From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schappert v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 12, 1975
50 A.D.2d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Opinion

December 12, 1975

Appeal from the Erie Supreme Court.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Simons, Mahoney, Goldman and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Since no appeal has been taken by plaintiff, the only question before us is whether Special Term properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment in this action to recover unpaid compensation for services rendered by plaintiff (People v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 34 N.Y.2d 646, 648). The conflicting affidavits presented factual questions with respect to the terms of the employment agreement between the parties and as to whether the payments accepted by plaintiff without objection over substantially all of the employment period reflected an agreement in the nature of an accord and satisfaction. With respect to the defenses of laches and estoppel, defendant's affidavits do not demonstrate the change of position prejudicial to defendant in reliance on plaintiff's conduct which would support such defenses (Glenesk v Guidance Realty Corp., 36 A.D.2d 852). However, the defense of limitation of time is conclusively established as to claims accruing more than six years prior to the institution of this action on January 30, 1975 (CPLR 213, subd 2). No estoppel barring the assertion of such defense has been established. There was no representation or conduct by defendant, calculated to mislead plaintiff, that induced her to forebear instituting a timely action (Robinson v City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 260, 263). On the contrary, plaintiff's own affidavits indicate that in early November, 1974 — when suit might yet have been brought for all the damages now demanded — defendant's counsel was disclaiming liability for any claims arising more than two years before that date, and that the parties then were unable to agree as to an amount to be paid to plaintiff. It follows that the Statute of Limitations is an effective bar to claims accruing before January 30, 1969.


Summaries of

Schappert v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 12, 1975
50 A.D.2d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)
Case details for

Schappert v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:HELEN SCHAPPERT, Respondent, v. BAKER HALL, Sued Herein as OUR LADY OF…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 1975

Citations

50 A.D.2d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)

Citing Cases

Redington v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co.

It is well settled that the sine qua non of an estoppel is some inequitable or fraudulent conduct engaged in…

Aceros Industriales, S.A. de C.V. v. Florida Steel

These expressions are not inconsistent with the assertion of a statute of limitations defense, nor could…