Legal Opinion

Eidman v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 15, 1991PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s action against defendant Thorpe was not governed by a one year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215 [1]). Since the duty imposed upon a Deputy Sheriff to use reasonable care in the operation of his motor vehicle is not a duty imposed upon him by his office, but instead is a duty imposed upon everyone who operates a motor vehicle, the shortened one year Statute of Limitations does not apply (Brady v Woodworth, 117 AD2d 995; Dixon v Seymour, 62 AD2d 444).

We also reject defendant Thorpe’s argument…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dixon v. SeymourAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  2. Trustees of Hamilton College v. CunninghamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  3. Brady v. WoodworthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Snyder v. PlankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  2. Smelts v. Deputy Monroe County Sheriff Bridget O'HaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API