Legal Opinion

Lunn v. Holiday Corp.

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

Decided March 13, 1992PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant Columbia Sussex Corporation and third-party defendant contend that plaintiff’s action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. In Lunn v Holiday Corp. (167 AD2d 818) we concluded that plaintiff’s service of an amended summons and complaint upon defendant was a mere correction of a misnomer (see generally, Simpson v Kenston Warehousing Corp., 154 AD2d 526; Pinto v House, 79 AD2d 361, 364; Covino v Alside Aluminum Supply Co., 42 AD2d 77, 80). The resolution of whether the action was barred by the applicable Statute of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Simpson v. Kenston Warehousing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. Covino v. Alside Aluminum Supply Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
  3. Pinto v. HouseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  4. McGee v. Bells SupermarketAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  5. Lunn v. Holiday Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. HakimianAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Foley v. Chase Manhattan Banking Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API