From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 1993
191 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 23, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


The claim that plaintiff was unable to remember the August 1988 incident underlying the action until late in 1990 implicitly concedes defendant College's point that an issue of fact exists as to the date on which plaintiff's causes of action against the College accrued. The conclusory assertion of repressed memory due to "posttraumatic neurosis" is insufficient to invoke the tolling provisions of CPLR 208 (Hoffman v. Hoffman, 162 A.D.2d 249, 250, citing McCarthy v. Volkswagen of Am., 55 N.Y.2d 543). Nor do plaintiff's conclusory assertions that defendant Reed resided in New York County when the action was commenced warrant retention of venue in that county (see, Morale v. La Grange Inn, 160 A.D.2d 783, 784).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Davis v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 1993
191 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Davis v. Reed

Case Details

Full title:SARA DAVIS, Appellant, v. BRADFORD REED et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 23, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 4

Citing Cases

Steo v. Cucuzza

Although the term "insanity" is not defined by the statute, the Court of Appeals has held that "the…

Inesti v. Hicks

. See also, e.g., de los Santos v. Fingerson, 1998 WL 740851 at *4; dePoel v. City of N.Y., 772 F. Supp. at…