A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, agreed that a statute of limitations defense “concealed” in boilerplate language asserting 15 other defenses was ineffective, but the panel split as to what would be a proper pleading.
The inclusion of the defense “within a laundry list of predominantly inapplicable defenses did not provide plaintiff with the requisite notice,” said Justice Rolando Acosta, writing for the three-judge majority.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
