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.
SUE Y. LEWIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF RICHLAND, DEFENDANT, AND ROBERT NORTH, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF RICHLAND, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of the actions of Robert North (defendant) in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Town Clerk for defendant Town of Richland. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether Supreme Court erred in denying that part of defendants' motion seeking dismissal of that part of the second cause of action alleging that defendant assaulted plaintiff. We affirm. According to defendants, that part of the second cause of action against defendant is barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 215(3). “In support of their motion to dismiss, [however,] defendants failed even to allege, much less establish, that [defendant] was not acting within the scope of his employment” when he committed the alleged assault (Ruggiero v. Phillips, 292 A.D.2d 41, 44-45). Defendants “thus failed to establish that CPLR 215(3), rather than [the period of one year and 90 days set forth in] General Municipal Law § 50-i(1)(c), applies” to that part of the second cause of action against defendant (id. at 45). Defendants did not seek dismissal of the second cause of action against defendant on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action against defendant for assault, “and that ground cannot be considered for the first time on appeal” (Resnick v. Doukas, 261 A.D.2d 375, 376).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 10-00395
Decided: October 01, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)