Carr v. Allied Aviation Service Corp.

40 A.D.2d 608, 335 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 25, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 608 (Carr v. Allied Aviation Service Corp.) 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
Carr v. Allied Aviation Service Corp., 40 A.D.2d 608, 335 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 24, 1972, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations and which did not pass upon plaintiff’s motion to compel the attorneys for defendants to accept service of the complaint and to amend the caption of the action. Order reversed, defendants’ cross motion denied and plaintiff’s motion granted, all upon condition that plaintiff’s attorney shall personally pay respondents a total of $250 within 10 days after entry of the order hereon; and defendants’ attorneys are directed to accept service of the complaint [609]*609within 10 days after payment of said $250. In the event said payment is not made as herein directed, the order is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The commencement of a prior action on behalf of plaintiff during his infancy does not prevent the application of CPLR 208 to the claim at har. That tolling statute is clear and unambiguous. Its benefits are available to plaintiff (cf. O’Leary v. Brown Seal Realty Corp., 33 A D 2d 764). The 24-day delay in the service of the complaint in response to the demand therefor was not such as should result in a dismissal of the action. Nonetheless, the continued failure of plaintiff’s attorney to comply with the rules of the court in this action and in the prior action warrants the imposition of personal costs as a precondition to the reinstatement of this action. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc.
868 S.W.2d 752 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon
678 F.2d 1150 (Second Circuit, 1982)
McDonald v. McNulty
58 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 A.D.2d 608, 335 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-allied-aviation-service-corp-nyappdiv-1972.