MEYER v. ONONDAGA COUNTY (2006)

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for libel, slander, defamation and personal injuries based on defendants' alleged negligence in issuing an arrest warrant charging plaintiff with acts of sexual abuse.   Although the warrant was issued on October 28, 1998, plaintiff did not learn of its existence until May 30, 2003.   Plaintiff then retained an attorney, who notified defendant Sheriff's Department that plaintiff was erroneously named in the warrant, and the warrant was immediately “recalled.”   Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.   Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the issuance of the warrant did not constitute “a continuing act ․ [that] occurred anew each day the condition continued,” thereby tolling the statute of limitations until the arrest warrant was recalled (Kiernan v. Thompson, 134 A.D.2d 27, 30, 522 N.Y.S.2d 719, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 840, 537 N.Y.S.2d 122, 534 N.E.2d 39).   Rather, we conclude that the single publication rule applies, and thus the statute of limitations began to run from the date of the utterance and/or first publication (see generally Firth v. State of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 365, 369-370, 747 N.Y.S.2d 69, 775 N.E.2d 463), not from the date of plaintiff's discovery thereof (see generally Karam v. First Am. Bank of N.Y., 190 A.D.2d 1017, 1018, 593 N.Y.S.2d 640).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: