From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lezynski v. Kasprzyk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 20, 1953
281 AD 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Opinion


281 A.D. 346 119 N.Y.S.2d 904 CHARLOTTE LEZYNSKI, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of PETER LEZYNSKI, Deceased, Respondent, v. JOSEPH KASPRZYK et al., Defendants, and JOSEPH PANTERA et al., Appellants. Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department. March 20, 1953

         APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (KNOWLES, J.), entered September 2, 1952, in Erie County, which denied a motion by appellants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

         COUNSEL

          Joseph F. Pantera and William L. Rieth for appellants.

          Maurice Abloff for respondent.

          Per Curiam.

          This appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 5 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice on the ground that the cause of action did not accrue within the time limited for the commencement of an action thereon.

          The gist of plaintiff's complaint is that the defendant Pantera by certain wrongful acts brought about an illegal foreclosure and sale of real estate in which plaintiff's intestate had an interest as tenant by the entirety. As we read the complaint, plaintiff does not seek to set aside the judgment in foreclosure but attempts to state a cause of action at law for the recovery of money damages resulting from the alleged wrong. The action therefore is not one for the recovery of real property or the possession thereof but purports to be an action to recover damages for injury to property. Such an action is subject to the three-year limitation set forth in subdivision 7 of section 49 of the Civil Practice Act.

          The alleged wrong was completed upon the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale on August 28, 1933, and the cause of action, if any, accrued at that time. Plaintiff's intestate, however, was incompetent at that time and remained incompetent until his death on June 29, 1945. This action was commenced in April, 1952, nearly seven years later.

          Section 60 of the Civil Practice Act prior to its amendment (L. 1951, ch. 263) effective September 1, 1951, provided that if a person entitled to maintain an action other than for the recovery of real property is at the time when the cause of action accrues, insane 'the time of such disability is not a part of the time limited in this article for commencing the action; except that the time so limited cannot be extended more than five years by any such disability except infancy'. This action, therefore, became outlawed after eight years from the date of its accrual, namely, August 28, 1941.

         The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed and the motion granted.

         All concur. Present--TAYLOR, P. J., MCCURN, VAUGHAN, KIMBALL and PIPER, JJ.

         Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements and motion granted, with $10 costs.

Summaries of

Lezynski v. Kasprzyk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 20, 1953
281 AD 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
Case details for

Lezynski v. Kasprzyk

Case Details

Full title:CHARLOTTE LEZYNSKI, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 20, 1953

Citations

281 AD 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
281 App. Div. 346
119 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Scully v. Chase Bank USA, NA

Under New York law, a wrongful foreclosure action may only be asserted based on a successful judgment of…

Hanbidge v. Hunt

Although governed by a three-year Statute of Limitations, this cause of action accrued in July 1984, when the…