CG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, plf-res v. KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS CARE CENTER, INC., D/B/A KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER, res-app

15-107. CG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, plf-res v. KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS CARE CENTER, INC., D/B/A KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER, res-app — Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 17, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

15-107. CG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, plf-res v. KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS CARE CENTER, INC., D/B/A KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER, res-app — Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 17, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Even assuming that the underlying motion for partial summary judgment was not barred by the general proscription against successive summary judgment motions, it was properly denied. Although the sixyear statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract actions would bar plaintiff’s claims for rent accruing prior to May 5, 2000 (see CPLR 213[2]), a triable issue is raised as to whether the written rent schedule prepared by defendant — which set forth, inter alia, the monthly rent due from 1994 through 2000, and the number of months rent was paid during this period — was sufficient to restart the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law §17 101; Fade v. Pugliani/Fade, 8 AD3d 612 [2004]). “Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case” (Estate of Vengroski v. Garden Inn, 114 AD2d 927, 928 [1985]). Thus, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue (see Roth v. Speilman, 25 AD3d 383 [2006]).

CG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, plf-res v. KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS CARE CENTER, INC., D/B/A KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER, res-app

15-107. CG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, plf-res v. KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS CARE CENTER, INC., D/B/A KINGSBRIDGE HEIGHTS REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER, res-app — Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 17, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal