Baptiste v. Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baptiste v. Doe

89 A.D.3d 436, 931 N.Y.2d 868

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Since plaintiffs filing of this action was untimely, it was a nullity, “and there was no service period to extend” (Gonzalez v [437] New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 29 AD3d 369, 370 [2006]; Croce v City of New York, 69 AD3d 488 [2010]). In the absence of an action pending against them, defendants’ own tardiness in moving to “dismiss” did not constitute a waiver of the statute of limitations defense (see CPLR 3211 [e]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Since plaintiffs filing of this action was untimely, it was a nullity, “and there was no service period to extend” (Gonzalez v [437] New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 29 AD3d 369, 370 [2006]; Croce v City of New York, 69 AD3d 488 [2010]). In the absence of an action pending against them, defendants’ own tardiness in moving to “dismiss” did not constitute a waiver of the statute of limitations defense (see CPLR 3211 [e]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Baptiste v. Doe, 89 A.D.3d 436, 931 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 436 (Baptiste v. Doe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related