AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

PALJO SALJANIN, respondent, v. VUKSAN VUKSANAJ, ET AL., appellants, ET AL., defendant.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $50,000 and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $45,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellants' contentions, this action was not barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213; Scionti v. Reid, 238 A.D.2d 496; Park Assocs. v. Crescent Park Assocs., 159 A.D.2d 460). Although the subject note matured on December 31, 1990, and this action was not commenced until July 24, 1997, a partial payment on the note was made in April 1992, which started the Statute of Limitations running anew (see, Roth v. Michelson, 55 N.Y.2d 278, 281; see also, Brooklyn Bank v. Barnaby, 197 N.Y. 210). Thus, the Supreme Court properly awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

However, at trial, the plaintiff acknowledged that, in view of that partial payment, the amount owed was $45,000. The judgment is modified accordingly.

The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SALJANIN v. VUKSANAJ
(Jun 25, 2001)