—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendants
The State further contends that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff Frank A. Sedita, Jr., relief on that part of the fifth cause of action concerning his claim arising out of his service as a City Court Judge because the claim is time-barred. The State waived the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations by failing to raise that affirmative defense in its answer or motion to dismiss. In any event, that contention is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see generally, Sovik v Healing Network,
