Rutzinger v. Lewis
| Citation | 302 A.D.2d 653,754 N.Y.S.2d 735 |
| Parties | LORI RUTZINGER, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>WILLIAM LEWIS et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 06 February 2003 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
On July 24, 1999, plaintiff was a patron at an establishment known as Angles Bar and Restaurant located in the City of Elmira, Chemung County. On that date, one of the bar owners allegedly grabbed plaintiff from behind, dragged her to the door and threw her down some stairs. As a result of injuries sustained by plaintiff, she commenced this action in October 2001 against him and the other bar owner. Following service of defendants' answer, plaintiff served an amended complaint. Thereafter, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in CPLR 215 (3). Supreme Court granted the motion, resulting in this appeal.
Based upon our review of the complaint and amended complaint, we find that dismissal of the action was proper. The specific allegations of the complaint and amended complaint are identical. Paragraph 5 of both alleges that one of the bar owners: The only difference between the two pleadings is that the complaint refers to the incident as an assault while the amended complaint refers to it as negligence.
In classifying a cause of action for statute of limitations purposes, the controlling consideration is not the form in which the cause of action is stated, but its substance (see Friedman v Gallinelli, 240 AD2d 699, 700; Locke v North Gateway Rest., 233 AD2d 578, 579; Trott v Merit Dept. Store, 106 AD2d 158, 160). Here, the conduct forming the basis of plaintiff's action clearly sounds in the nature of an intentional tort, not negligence. Although plaintiff seeks to avoid dismissal by arguing in her brief that questions of fact exist concerning whether one of the bar owners was negligent in failing to prevent the actions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dreamco Dev. Corp. v. Empire State Dev. Corp.
...the controlling consideration is not the form in which the cause of action is stated, but its substance" ( Rutzinger v. Lewis , 302 A.D.2d 653, 654, 754 N.Y.S.2d 735 [3d Dept. 2003] ; see Matter of Foley v. Masiello , 38 A.D.3d 1201, 1201-1202, 833 N.Y.S.2d 342 [4th Dept. 2007] ). Inasmuch ......
-
Dray v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.
...; Tong v. Target, Inc., 83 A.D.3d 1046, 922 N.Y.S.2d 458 ; Doe v. Jacobs, 19 A.D.3d 641, 642, 797 N.Y.S.2d 293 ; Rutzinger v. Lewis, 302 A.D.2d 653, 654, 754 N.Y.S.2d 735 ). Here, the defendants each established, prima facie, that the one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts ap......
-
Tong v. Target Inc.
...Brenner, 41 N.Y.2d 291, 293, 392 N.Y.S.2d 409, 360 N.E.2d 1091; Doe v. Jacobs, 19 A.D.3d 641, 642, 797 N.Y.S.2d 293; Rutzinger v. Lewis, 302 A.D.2d 653, 654, 754 N.Y.S.2d 735). The factual allegations of the first cause of action clearly set forth only intentional tortious conduct on the pa......
-
McDonald v. Riccuiti
...41 N.Y.2d 291, 293, 392 N.Y.S.2d 409, 360 N.E.2d 1091 ; Doe v. Jacobs, 19 A.D.3d 641, 642, 797 N.Y.S.2d 293 ; Rutzinger v. Lewis, 302 A.D.2d 653, 654, 754 N.Y.S.2d 735 ). The 6 N.Y.S.3d 135factual allegations of the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action clearly set forth only intentiona......