You are here: / / THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER...
, ,

THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 BEGAN TO RUN UPON ARRAIGNMENT.

The First Department noted that the three year statute of limitations for a false arrest cause of action under 42 USC 1983 began to run upon arraignment:

The three-year limitations period on a section 1983 claim based on false arrest begins to run “when the alleged false imprisonment ends” — that is, when the arrestee becomes subject to the legal process such as being “bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges” … . Here, because plaintiff was arraigned on July 16, 2011, the limitations period on his section 1983 claim based on false arrest ended on July 16, 2014, approximately three months before plaintiff filed this action. Accordingly, the claim is time-barred. Cruz v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02386, 1st Dept 3-28-17

 

You might also like
APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST EMPLOYER ALLEGING EMPLOYEES WERE ROUTINELY UNDERPAID ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.
Matter First Raised In a Reply Affirmation Is Not Properly Before an Appellate Court
Attorney-Client Communications Not Discoverable in Legal Malpractice Action​
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).
Potential Conflict of Interest Arising from Representation of Co-Guardians Required that the Co-Guardians Each Have Their Own Counsel
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON THE CONDITION OF THE HOME (FIRST DEPT),

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE SANDOVAL RULING AT TRIAL, THE OBJECTION WAS... DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIR’S DETERMINATION WAS AFFECTED BY AN ERROR...