Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Susan O'HALLORAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 345 PARK COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Benjamin Moore & Co., Defendant-Appellant. [And A Third-Party Action.]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 17, 1997, which, in an action to recover for toxic injuries allegedly caused by exposure to defendant-appellant's paint product, granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, and denied defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant's evidence in support of its cross motion to dismiss is insufficient to prove that plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1990. Rather, the documentary evidence supports plaintiff's contention that she “discover[ed] the primary condition on which the claim is based” (Matter of New York County DES Litigation [Wetherill], 89 N.Y.2d 506, 509, 655 N.Y.S.2d 862, 678 N.E.2d 474; CPLR 214-c[2] ) in September 1991, less than three years before the action was commenced against defendant in August 1994. To the extent that plaintiff may have exhibited some symptoms after her alleged exposure to paint fumes in 1990, these “early symptoms [were] too isolated or inconsequential to trigger the running of the Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214-c(2)” (id., at 514, n. 4, 655 N.Y.S.2d 862, 678 N.E.2d 474). Plaintiff only missed two and a half days of work after the alleged 1990 exposure, and neither sought medical attention nor filed a Workers' Compensation claim until after the subsequent 1991 exposure (compare, Whitney v. Quaker Chem. Corp., 90 N.Y.2d 845, 660 N.Y.S.2d 862, 683 N.E.2d 768). Concerning amendment of the complaint, which seeks only to add new legal theories based on the same set of facts already pleaded, defendant fails to articulate any resulting prejudice (see, Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 849, 617 N.Y.S.2d 139, 641 N.E.2d 160; Trusthouse v. Garden City Hotel, 106 A.D.2d 271, 483 N.Y.S.2d 216). We have considered defendant-appellant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 30, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)