![]() When the moving party comes forward with evidence supporting a particular assertion, his "opponent cannot rest on the allegations of the complaint but must adduce factual material which raises a substantial question of the veracity or completeness of the movant's showing or presents countervailing facts." Beal v. In making this determination, the Court will consider affidavits, depositions, interrogatory answers, and admissions, but will not give any effect to mere conclusory allegations or denials or to unsubstantiated assertions. In the context of a motion for summary judgment, the Court cannot, of course, resolve disputed issues of fact, but can only determine whether there are issues of fact to be tried. The Court must, therefore, examine the facts underlying this dispute in order to ascertain where plaintiff's claims accrued for purposes of the borrowing statute. Consequently, the borrowing statute bars his claim if it accrued in a jurisdiction outside of New York and the limitations period in that jurisdiction has expired. ![]() It is uncontested that Lang is a Canadian citizen, residing in Ottawa. Thus, it prevents forum shopping by a nonresident. The avowed purpose of § 202 is "to protect New York resident-defendants from suits in New York that would be barred by shorter statutes of limitations in other states where non-resident-plaintiffs could have brought suit." Stafford v. Low, 478 F.2d 360, 365 (2d Cir.1973), which provides that: An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply. Reference to New York law also includes resort to its borrowing statute, e.g., Sack v. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part.īecause the Act does not provide a limitations period, I must look to the law of New York, as the forum state, to determine whether any of plaintiff's claims are time-barred. ![]() The case is currently before the Court on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's federal securities law claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations insofar as they are based upon pre-Februtransactions. The dispute concerns the manner in which plaintiff's brokerage account was handled during the period March 1978 through March 1980. (the "Act") and a common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Bruce Lang ("Lang") commenced this action on Februagainst defendant Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Incorporated ("Paine Webber"), alleging federal claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Gaston, Snow, Beekman & Bogue, New York City, for defendant Martin P. Zischkau, III, White Plains, N.Y., of counsel. LeFlore, New York City, for plaintiff Herbert S. ![]() PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON & CURTIS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |