You are here: / / WHATEVER TIME REMAINS ON THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHEN THE...
,

WHATEVER TIME REMAINS ON THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHEN THE COVID TOLL BEGAN IS ALL THAT IS LEFT WHEN TO TOLL IS LIFTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the statute of limitations in this personal injury action was subject to the COVID toll, the three-year statute just picked up at the end of the toll where it left off at the beginning of the toll. Therefore plaintiff was not entitled to simply add on the length of the toll (228 days) when the toll was lifted. Plaintiff only had 152 days left when the toll was lifted:

… [D]ue to the tolling provision of the executive orders, the statute of limitations within which the plaintiff was required to file the instant action was tolled between March 20, 2020, and November 3, 2020, a period of 228 days … . However, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, she did not have an additional 228 days, the length of the tolling period, after the toll’s expiration to commence the action. Instead, the remaining 152 days left on her three-year statute of limitations started to run after the toll was lifted on November 4, 2020 … . Since this action was commenced on April 19, 2021, the plaintiff did not timely commence the action within t…he statute of limitations that expired on April 4, 2021…. . Ruiz v Sanchez, 2023 NY Slip Op 04608, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: Whatever time remains on the applicable statute of limitations when the COVID toll began is all that is left when the COVID toll is lifted.

 

You might also like
Purchasers Entitled to Return of Downpayment Under Terms of the Purchase Contract and Pursuant to General Obligations Law 5-1311—Home Damaged by Hurricane Sandy Before Appraisal by Lender
Delay in Notification Justified Refusal to Defend and Indemnify
Judge Properly Refused to Accept Defendant’s Plea to a Lesser Offense Because the Prosecutor Objected to the Plea Allocution as Insufficient
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF POINTS WAS REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT FROM “ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” (RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD) TO “INFLICTED PERSONAL INJURY,” DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE CHANGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEWSPAPER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AND RECORDS CREATED BEFORE THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS.
CORRIDOR FORMED BY LUMBER AND MATERIALS PILED ON EITHER SIDE WAS A PASSAGEWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, DEFENDANT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6).

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

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS... A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL A NON-SLIP FLOOR OR A GRAB...