Scholastic Inc. v. Pace Plumbing Corp.

Friedman, J.P.

(concurring). I concur in the majority’s reversal of the judgment, including the remand to allow defendant Pace Plumbing Corp. to replead its statute of limitations defense in proper form and for further discovery on that issue. The inclusion of the statute of limitations in the middle of a list of 16 different affirmative defenses that Pace purported to “assert[ ] and reserve! ] onto [sic] itself,” in a single one-sentence paragraph in its answer, was plainly inconsistent with the statutory requirement that “[s]eparate causes of action or defenses ... be separately stated and…