Eidman v. County of Monroe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Dixon v. SeymourAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Trustees of Hamilton College v. CunninghamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Brady v. WoodworthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
3Cited by2 opinions
- Snyder v. PlankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Smelts v. Deputy Monroe County Sheriff Bridget O'HaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003