You are here: / / Statute of Limitations Defense Waived If Not Raised in a Timely Motion...

Statute of Limitations Defense Waived If Not Raised in a Timely Motion to Dismiss

The Second Department noted that the statute of limitations defense to misdemeanors is waived if not raised in a timely motion to dismiss.  The misdemeanor convictions therefore are valid:

The defendant waived his claim that the two misdemeanor counts of which he was convicted were barred by the statute of limitations by not making a timely motion to dismiss on that ground … . People v Sylvestre, 2014 NY Slip Op 08464, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE GUILTY PLEA MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS HE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS POSSIBLE; MATTER SENT BACK TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT). ​
Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations
Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial
COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT).
INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTY SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).
Father’s Application for Dismissal of Maternal Aunt’s Custody Petition (After Death of Mother) Granted
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THERE WAS A COMPELLING NEED FOR DISCOVERY OF ‘ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT/MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION/HIV-RELATED INFORMATION’ IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DISCOVERY REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Appellant, Who Was Only Mentioned in the Complaint As the Holder of a Second... Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include...