COURT SHOULDN’T HAVE DISMISSED CASE BASED ON "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS"
When Allstar Productions filed a commercial claims case based upon the nonpayment of computer services provided to defendant NF, the Kings County Civil Court ended up dismissing the case -- even though NF failed to appear, and All Star’s invoices established that $2,040.73 was outstanding – because the judge thought the claim was time-barred; precluded by the governing statute of limitations.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, noted that in small claims or commercial claims cases, state law requires that the statute of limitations defense be raised by a party by way of a motion or at trial, or it's “waived.” Similarly, when a defendant fails to appear, then that defense is also waived, and the Civil Court shouldn’t have dismissed the case based upon a purported time-bar.
As a result, the dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded so that a judgment in the amount of $2,040.73 could be entered in Allstar’s favor.
Was the AT2 their lucky star?
# # #