Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
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)

JOHN W. CLARK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM. We agree that plaintiff has failed to state any cause of action that is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. Without intending to suggest any retreat from acceptance of the existence of a cause of action, in proper circumstances, for intentional injury without lawful excuse or justification (see Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., Local 1889, AFT AFL-CIO, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 405-406; Morrison v National Broadcasting Co., 24 A.D.2d 284, revd on other grounds 19 N.Y.2d 453), we hold that the action falls properly under CPLR 215 (subd 3) (cf. Morrison v National Broadcasting Co., 19 N.Y.2d 453, 459, supra). As such, the cause is barred. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, as well as those enunciated by the Appellate Division, the order of that court should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum; Judge JONES taking no part.

Order affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CLARK v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY
(May 3, 1977)