Bellew v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 104, 708 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5430
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 9, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 104 (Bellew v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bellew v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 104, 708 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered December 31, 1998, which, upon granting plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, adhered to a prior order dismissing the complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny the motion to dismiss as against the first-named plaintiff only and reinstate the complaint as to that plaintiff only, and to grant the remaining 65 plaintiffs leave to re-file separate, individual complaints, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The complaint states a cause of action under amended General Municipal Law § 205-a. However, by commencing one action joining 66 plaintiffs rather than 66 separate actions, plaintiffs defeated the Legislature’s main reason for converting from a commencement-by-service to a commencement-by-filing system under amended CPLR 304, i.e., to raise money for State coffers by requiring the payment of a filing fee when an action is commenced (Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 719). To the extent various circumstances concerning various plaintiffs might be similar enough to warrant joinder, such cannot be determined upon the instant papers, and should be addressed by the motion court after the remaining 65 plaintiffs have had a fair opportunity to commence separate actions. Pursuant to defendant’s agreement at oral argument, the Stat[105]*105ute of Limitations is tolled and shall not be a bar to the re-filings allowed herein. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

John M. Horvath, D.C., P.C. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
24 Misc. 3d 194 (Nassau County District Court, 2009)
Acevedo v. City of New York
193 Misc. 2d 791 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 104, 708 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellew-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.