Rolnick v. Rolnick

• Decision Date: 22 April 1968
• Citation: 290 N.Y.S.2d 111,29 A.D.2d 987
• Parties: Albert ROLNICK, Respondent, v. Jacob ROLNICK, Defendant-Appellant. and Third-Party Plaintiff, ADELPHIHOLDING CORP. et al., Third-Party Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 111

290 N.Y.S.2d 111

29 A.D.2d 987

Albert ROLNICK, Respondent, v.Jacob ROLNICK, Defendant-Appellant. and Third-Party Plaintiff, ADELPHIHOLDING CORP. et al Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 22, 1968.

Harold Freund, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Jacob Rolnick, Brooklyn, pro se; Charles Feit, New York City, of counsel.

Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 1, 1967, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment predicated upon the ground that the cause of action alleged in the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

Order reversed, with $30 costs and disbursements, and summary judgment granted in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint.

In our opinion, regardless of the label applied by plaintiff, the cause of action alleged is for the traditional tort of inducing a breach of plaintiff's employment contract.The cause of action accrued on March 16, 1962, and was governed by the...