From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rinaldi v. Rochford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 2010
77 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-09379.

October 12, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated August 13, 2009, which granted the motion by the defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Law Offices of Thomas J. Bailey Associates, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (Nancy Pavlovic of counsel), for appellant.

Kelly, Rode Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Susan M. Ulrich of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since this action was commenced after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion by the defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred ( see CPLR 214; Lessoff v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 58 AD3d 610, 611; Tricoche v Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Co., 48 AD3d 671, 672; Gem Flooring v Kings Park Indus., 5 AD3d 542, 544). Further, CPLR 205 (a) is inapplicable because a prior action seeking identical relief as is sought in this action was properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction ( see Wydallis v United States Fid. Guar. Co., 63 NY2d 872, 874; Hebrew Inst, for Deaf Exceptional Children v Kahana, 57 AD3d 734, 735; Levinsky v Mugermin, 52 AD3d 477; Gem Flooring v Kings Park Indus., 5 AD3d at 544).

To the extent that the plaintiff attempted to informally seek leave to effect late service of the original summons and complaint upon the defendants pursuant to CPLR 306-b, that affirmative relief should have been sought in a notice of cross motion to the Supreme Court ( see CPLR 2215; Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64 AD3d 1153, 1154) and, in any event, was not available to the plaintiff under the circumstances ( see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106; Walker v Chaman, 31 AD3d 751, 752; Matter of Rodamis v Cretan's Assn. Omonoia, Inc., 22 AD3d 859, 860; Smith v Southside Hosp., 15 AD3d 387, 388 ; Winter v Irizarry, 300 AD2d 472).


Summaries of

Rinaldi v. Rochford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 2010
77 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Rinaldi v. Rochford

Case Details

Full title:21 MICHAEL RINALDI, Appellant, v. WILLIAM J. ROCHFORD et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 12, 2010

Citations

77 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7320
908 N.Y.S.2d 592

Citing Cases

State v. Braun

Lee cited to four cases in support of this proposition. With the exception of Broser, which is cited as a…

U.S. Bank Tr. v. 21647 LLC

Further, that the Appellate Division saw fit to follow that statement with a substantial analysis of the…