Legal Opinion

Marceca v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 2004Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Lawrence S. Knipel, J.

Defendant Keyspan Corporation moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action against Keyspan was commenced after the statute of limitations had expired and it is therefore time-barred. Keyspan also moves, without opposition, for an order restoring the instant motion to dismiss, which was “marked off’ for both parties’ failure to appear on the return date of said motion, to the court’s motion calendar. Defendant City of New York moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and/or 3212,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Poirier v. City of SchenectadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Katz v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Perez v. Paramount Communications, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. Gee v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  5. Zigman v. Town of HempsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API