I don't know why I do the weird capitalization thing in my post titles. Eventually I'll stop or find some other, just as stupid, format for them.
CPLR R. 3211(a)(5) Motion to dismiss for SOL (or other things, but SOL in this case)
215 Actions to be commenced within one year: against sheriff, coroner
or constable; for escape of prisoner; for assault, battery, false
imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel or slander; for violation of
right of privacy; for penalty given to informer; on arbitration award
Ross v Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06131 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the
right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of final
judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248).
The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for
review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a]).
The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint [*2]pursuant
to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and CPLR 215(3) on the ground that the statute of
limitations had expired. The alleged libelous statement was published
by the defendant in 2000 when it forwarded a report regarding the
plaintiff to USIS, a reporting agency that provides background
information to employers, thereby communicating the information to a
third party (see Gregoire v Putnam's Sons, 298 NY 119). The
report generated by USIS in 2006 and provided to the plaintiff's
employer was a republication, as it was a separate and distinct
publication from the original that was intended to, and actually did,
reach a new audience (see Rinaldi v Viking Penguin, 52 NY2d 422,
433-435). Accordingly, the alleged libelous material was republished
and the statute of limitations began to run anew from the time of the
republication. This action was timely commenced within one year from
the republication and, therefore, the motion should have been denied.
The bold is mine.