Vorce v Wood
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Vorce v Wood 2018 NY Slip Op 33460(U) March 13, 2018 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: 900091-2016 Judge: Christina L. Ryba Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE NEW YORK OF SUPREME SIDNEY OF ALBANY COUNTY COURT VORCE and THOMAS VORCE, DECISION/ORDER Plaintiffs, -against- Index RJI MICHAEL No. 900091-2016 01-17-126562 No. J. WOOD, Defendant. APPEARANCES: 4 Athari For Associates Plaintiffs 46 Road Oxford New & Knych For Park 300 South Place, Suite State Street NY 404 13202 J., parents the period of in an apartment 19, 2016, January sustained Street LLC Defendant One During he 13413 Whritenour Syracuse, RYBA NY Hartford, while defendant's amended On May 15, defenses including 2017, of time which expiration of his served exposure to obtained older brother, an answer of the Statute lead denying an unlimited extension On June plaintiff and and 28 asserting the failure at the 2016, Congress old, served serve an as a plaintiff. various of to before Vorce years that alleging of time Thomas then Vorce, 20, On Cohoes. action this he resided liability of Limitations of City their with residing while expired, Sidney in the commenced negotiations. an answer children young Street old, in settlement to interpose his Congress 24 years and requested engage added defendant the then as a result to attempting at 178 Vorce, counsel Defense extension complaint Thomas were plaintiffs 1995, defendant by injuries cognitive apartment. an answer owned plaintiff through 1992 Sidney affirmative Vorce to [* 2] I "' commence properly now Defendant his oppose Plaintiffs the of be added or appeared, or at anytime after neither that amended for when before the of the action a pleading of Court an answer complaint could the motion Defendant's for in as barred Vorce's leave claim the by to date. discovery any Statute of colmnenced. as improperly of court undisputed the that complaint first Sidney that the leave claim obtained prior responsive pursuant of CPLR as improperly days twenty it is undisputed not of the yet of time of commenced expired an amended 1003, or a stipulation Court summons extension had time to original to service an unlimited may have who although Here, a "[p]arties parties or within that and that of the expires obtained Accordingly, Vorce's service after was all through parties, provides of supplied]. parties obtaining 1003 summons defendant and served. without days twenty of the stipulation or by [emphasis of stipulation CPLR to that it" or Court as a plaintiff added improperly required. within stipulation was to dismiss was to was of responding original served leave of court nor complaint be by responding it is also amended engaged not complaint Vorce Sidney number leave the period complaint, serving have Sidney without index without leave the that a new stage once dismissing dismissing complaint using of service an order contends first at any parties motion. an amended action separate the Notably, as an order Defendant service for moves as well Limitations, action. the parties. is therefore denied. Defendant three-year of until the Statute injury, the but infant's next of with 18* 18 moves Limitations respect birthday to dismiss applicable to an infant (see, CPLR the complaint to personal plaintiff 214; the CPLR 2 as untimely. actions injury three-year 208). It is well period Applying begins will these settled to run not that upon commence provisions the date the to run to the case [* 3] the at bar, this three-year action upon at the seek to extend the 506, 511 C_a, 57 AD3d years that cause of his Limitations claimed or medical not been from the the not proponent that applicable the in this caused knowledge by and identified discovered, . rule discovery the period set forth Court lead finds paint information or has Hous. that in the exposure, of the this latter extension information expired CPLR (see, 81 AD3d 214-c it cannot (4) be to ascertain . 3 burden €” 214-c[4]). cause ., 89 NY2d 1355 Indeed, than upon ascertain the a prima [2011]). extend here. of more only to Elec. of not v Dzamba.. the through €” 214-c[4]). Vasilatos that be plaintiff, of making to "shall Statute but may 214-c. v General the (CPLR operates the the applies 1354, shown when Litie., injury, is inapplicable extension (CPLR the date sufficient determined" bears Auth, sufficient determined" cause or defendant extend may cases Aiken [2017]; (4) tort by DES County the and identified v Rochester Larkin case, However, knowledge limitations York 214-c the discovered 1276-77€” CPLR herein, been of New discovers discovered, motion have or from they CPLR in in toxic - are premised substance, pronounced period plaintiff 1275, addition, itself. injury the should AD3d a plaintiff date by Matter see, 148 In been injury claims to a toxic rule discovery commenced plaintiffs plaintiffs' exposure limitations injury or medical of the [2017]; whether injuries the scientific had [2]; v Dzamba, discovering injury 1276-77€” of year such 214-c [2008]). three-year of the diligence the when because alleged through discovery expired However, of their the since long 28. and result (2), 1072 "technical, demonstration issue of (CPLR 1070, after As 1275, date had Limitations 214-c Vasilatos one proof CPLR earlier" [1997]; Limitations of 24 as the of reasonable is ages of Statute from whichever five the to exercise Limitations sustained Pursuant computed the respective injuries latent of Statute the In the "technical, [plaintiff's] it is well 148 facie AD3d On the Statute case of of scientific injury settled had that [* 4] "[t]he dangers of exposure documented" 342 337, commence in to the the than discovered the their three-year lead paint statute from not 148 argument that the possessed they because the the records the educational the possible Appellate date the records cause Appellate Division, plaintiff's knowledge of her Third cause plaintiff injuries, injury [emphasis in their to trigger paint this exposure difference not notion, realized that is not held the cause 4 to paint their it was the held cause of of the referenced dispositive. in Vasilatos injury, As plaintiffs' show three-year lead-paint period Although exposure discussed, previously triggers been v cannot symptoms. v Dzamba that have rejects that the by "the (Vasilatos records their caused that should Court educational that plaintiffs, were symptom" commencement of the by have symptoms Finally, as the commenced should specifically or in succeed or reasonably and/or the that advanced has condition v Dzamba specifically itself the supplied]). medical v failure lead-based will or reasonably 1)epartment ofthe their linking evidence is discovered in Vasilatos Department of the rejects that defendant (2), submitting Third specific lead 214-c plaintiffs sufficient identify of the that symptom [2017] knowledge do not Court Vasilatos herein. discovered or set forth information plaintiffs Division, condition 1278 by NY2d 100 [1996]; claim knowledge alleged CPLR in €” 640-641 628, well v Vallone, legitimately scientific injuries The date ofthe 1275, the that the The of is untimely date from discovery AD3d Dzamba, that the lack set forth symptoms. runs exposure. discovered, the respective period runs toll action from to the cannot are children, Poisoning 88 NY2d Team, Plaintiffs of cognitive discovery years three type due Lead to End Mgt. [2017]). to young especially Coalition City was plaintiffs' that demonstrating paint, v Wavecrest sooner children Regarding York at 1278-79€” action this exposure Juarez see, AD3d 148 Dzamba, more of New (Matter [2003]; to lead-based it is the limitations as the [* 5] period. there Indeed, such a notation the concludes evidence when to injuries the however, that establish such plaintiffs records of the have medical conduct when is indispensible discovery the completion For the foregoing ORDERED of the aware that i.e, the excerpts loss from were of Defendant plaintiffs may Inasmuch the or reasonably determination of is denied as premature, and proof and of have without submit upon medical plaintiffs' is time prejudice, extent have been impulsivity, the complete claims of the and requested their afforded by plaintiffs should known action to date to what submitted specifically timeliness this been distractibility, be deposed whether not or reasonably has should has plaintiffs intelligence, the Significantly, whether Moreover, failed or the injuries, defendant papers has diligence. reveal may plaintiffs behavior. knew motion of action, examined. they even moving Defendant respective and discovery selected that so that to the defendant's Accordingly, completion date the be was the examining reasonable injuries. to reveal discovery v Dzamba burden. their which contain in this initial with in any respective seem upon discovered testimony oppositional may defendant's engage motion in Vasilatos motion, discovered and claimed records upon entirely been to plaintiff defendant's plaintiffs of their and the records. satisfy that yet which injuries to opportunity not documents disabilities learning of have to defendant's educational upon date cognizant in opposition and the should parties were aware do that educational substance they to obtain opportunity indication in her existed Addressing Court is no their educational hinges symptoms, barred. subject to renewal discovery. reasons, motion it is is denied, costs without discovery. 5 and without prejudice to renewal upon the [* 6] This Decision Memorandum and to the transferred constitute rule Order entry regarding constitutes is being Albany or filing filing, returned County under entry, the Decision to the Clerk. The CPLR or notice 2220. of and attorney for Order of the plaintiffs. signing of this Counsel is not Decision relieved entry. ENTER. Dated: Ó(4fO { ] L p HON. Supreme CHRISTINA Court 6 L. Justice RYBA Court. The This original and from papers Order the original shall provision are being not of that
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
