class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs


« NY Court: Statute of Limitations Means What It Says |

April 24, 2007

NY Court Refuses To Disregard Statute of Limitations

The New York Law Journal reports that the Empire State's intermediate court of appeals has refused to disregard the state's three-year statute of limitations on product liability suits.

Warren Robare had quit smoking in 1991, admitting then that he knew of tobacco's dangerous propensities. He sued all the tobacco companies in 1997. Too late, said the court.

Robare's attorney cited Zumpano v. Quinn, 6 NY3d 666 (2006), in which the Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) denied plaintiff's claim that equitable estoppel required disregarding the statute of limitations. That suit had been pressed by victims of sexual abuse by priests. The Zumpano Court had suggested that equitable estoppel could be invoked if a plaintiff refrained from filing a timely action due to the "fraud, misrepresentations or deception" of the defendant. Robare argued that Big Tobacco was guilty of just such fraud, but the court was unpersuaded, since any alleged fraud clearly did not hoodwink Robare.

Posted by Michael Krauss at 06:17 AM | TrackBack (0)

Products Liability



Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.