Douglas v. Christie's International PLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Douglas v. Christie's International PLC

226 A.D.2d 185, 640 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 185 (Douglas v. Christie's International PLC) 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

Douglas v. Christie's International PLC, 226 A.D.2d 185, 640 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1995, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs causes of action for conversion and replevin accrued in 1978, when, in response to plaintiffs letters asserting co-ownership of the subject chattel, the alleged co-owner denied that plaintiff had any ownership interest in the chattel (Del Piccolo v Newburger, 9 NYS2d 512). The claims are therefore barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Defendant co-owner’s claimed absence from the State cannot effect a toll absent proof, which it is plaintiff’s burden to adduce (see, Massie v Crawford, 78 NY2d 516, 519), that jurisdiction could not be obtained through extraterritorial service of process (CPLR 207 [3]). And, the action would be time-barred even if a foreign law’s Statute of Limitations were applicable, since, to be applicable, CPLR 202, the borrowing statute, requires that it be shorter than New York’s Statute of Limitations (United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Smith Co., 46 NY2d 498, 504). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1995, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs causes of action for conversion and replevin accrued in 1978, when, in response to plaintiffs letters asserting co-ownership of the subject chattel, the alleged co-owner denied that plaintiff had any ownership interest in the chattel (Del Piccolo v Newburger, 9 NYS2d 512). The claims are therefore barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Defendant co-owner’s claimed absence from the State cannot effect a toll absent proof, which it is plaintiff’s burden to adduce (see, Massie v Crawford, 78 NY2d 516, 519), that jurisdiction could not be obtained through extraterritorial service of process (CPLR 207 [3]). And, the action would be time-barred even if a foreign law’s Statute of Limitations were applicable, since, to be applicable, CPLR 202, the borrowing statute, requires that it be shorter than New York’s Statute of Limitations (United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Smith Co., 46 NY2d 498, 504). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 185, 640 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-christies-international-plc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack