You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE LAWSUIT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR...
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE LAWSUIT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY FILING BEFORE OR AFTER THE COVID TOLL-PERIOD, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT; THE TOLL EFFECTIVELY ADDED 228 DAYS, THE LENGTH OF THE TOLL-PERIOD, TO THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the COVID tolls of the statute of limitations rendered the plaintiffs action timely:

472 days of the 1,095-day limitation period had elapsed by the time the toll began on March 20, 2020. Upon the expiration of the toll on November 3, 2020, the remaining 623 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on July 20, 2022 … . Thus, the action was timely commenced on May 18, 2022 … .

Defendants contend that the toll is inapplicable here because plaintiffs could have timely commenced the action at any point between December 4, 2018 [when the cause action accrued], and March 20, 2020 [when the toll began], or between November 3, 2020 [when the toll expired], and December 4, 2021 [three years from accual]. We reject that contention. “[A] toll operates to compensate a claimant for the shortening of the statutory period in which it must commence . . . an action, irrespective of whether the stay has actually deprived the claimant of any opportunity to do so” …  Thus, plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of tolling for the entire 228-day duration of the COVID-19 Executive Orders. Harden v Weinraub, 2023 NY Slip Op 05822, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs’ action accrued before the COVID toll-period which began on March 20, 2020, and there was still time left on the three-year statute of limitations when the toll was lifted on November 3, 2020. The fact that plaintiffs could have commenced the suit within three years of accrual was not relevant. The three-year statute was extended by the the length of the toll-period, 228 days.

 

You might also like
THE TOWN ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE TERM “SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS” SUCH THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE TRANSIENT TENANTS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF “FAMILY” (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Allegations of Injuries in the Bill of Particulars Were Not So Broad as to Constitute a Waiver of the Physician-Patient Privilege for Plaintiff’s Entire Medical History
HERE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRED INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A GUTTER, DOWNSPOUT AND FENCE FOR $2500; THE MEMORANDUM WAS NOT AN “INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY” AND THEREFORE “SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT” WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
SPANISH-LANGUAGE CONVICTION RECORDS FROM PUERTO RICO, WHICH WERE NOT TRANSLATED, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT TO BE A SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND INCLUDED A PARCEL OF LAND NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEED AND SOUGHT A CORRECTED DEED; PURSUANT TO THE MERGER DOCTRINE, THE CONTRACT AND THE DEED MERGED AT THE CLOSING AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IN THE DEED IS DEEMED TO REFLECT THE FINAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES (ABSENT FRAUD OR AMBIGUITY IN THE DEED); PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Error to Allow Prosecutor to Elicit Testimony that Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel
DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHICH WAS BEING CHASED BY POLICE AND WHICH FAILED TO OBEY A STOP SIGN; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH 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

THE TOWN ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE TERM “SINGLE FAMILY... FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF...