Equitable Estoppel and SOL

Some good old procedural fun here.

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts
(a) Appeals as of right

Evan S. v Joseph R., 2010 NY Slip Op 00831 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The June 24, 2008, order appealed from did not decide the defendant's motion to dismiss, but, instead, held it in abeyance. Accordingly, that order is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2]; Acunto v Stewart Ave. Gardens, LLC, 26 AD3d 305; Housberg v Curtin, 209 AD2d 670, 671; Matter of Fritsch v Westchester County Dept. of Transp., 170 AD2d 602), and we decline to grant leave to appeal, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 10, 2008.

Upon reargument and renewal, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries arising from alleged sexual assaults which purportedly occurred in 1995 when he was 10 years old. Pursuant to the toll for infancy (see CPLR 208), the applicable one-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 215[3]; Krioutchkova v Gaad Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 427, 428; Tserotas v [*2]Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. and S. Am., 251 AD2d 323, 324) began to run in 2003, after the plaintiff turned 18. Accordingly, the statute of limitations expired in 2004, and the plaintiff's commencement of this action in 2008 was untimely (see McDonald v McDonald, 193 AD2d 590, 591; Pittelli v Schulman, 128 AD2d 600, 602). Further, the alleged threats made by the defendant at the time of the incidents, and on a subsequent occasion while the parties were in high school, did not rise to the requisite level necessary to equitably estop the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to this action brought by the plaintiff approximately five years after he reached the age of majoritysee generally Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 674-675; Santo B. v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 51 AD3d 956, 957-958; Doe v Holy See [State of Vatican City], 17 AD3d 793, 796; Zoe G. v Frederick F.G., 208 AD2d 675, 675-676; Doe v Roe, 5 Misc 3d 1032A).  (

The bold is mine.  I put the link in for Zumpano.  I'm assuming at least on of you will be curious enough to check it out.  You're on your own for the rest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s