Majority
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of the cross motion of defendant to amend his answer to plead the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense. The failure to assert the Statute of Limitations in a motion to dismiss or in
The court properly denied that part of the cross motion of defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not breach the agreement. Defendant did not carry his burden of establishing that his construction of the agreement “ ‘is the only construction which can fairly be placed thereon’ ” (Utica Carting, Stor. & Contr. Co. v World Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 277 App Div 483 , 488, quoted in Dowdle v Richards, 2 AD2d 486 , 489; see also, St. Mary v Paul Smith’s Coll, of Arts & Sciences, 247 AD2d 859 ). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.
Cases cited
- Augenblick v. Town of Cortlandt 66 NY2d 775 at 777 p. 1188
- Itzkowitz v. Town Board of Niagara 139 AD2d 932 p. 1188
- Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Herman 101 AD2d 712 at 713 p. 1188
- Dowdle v. Richards 2 AD2d 486 at 489 p. 1188
- St. Mary v. Paul Smith's College of Arts & Sciences 247 AD2d 859 p. 1188