Ellis v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellis v. Riley

29 A.D.2d 562, 286 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2618

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 562 (Ellis v. Riley) 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

Ellis v. Riley, 29 A.D.2d 562, 286 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, pain, medical expenses, etc., defendant Riley appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings 'County, dated May 8, 1967, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss said defendant’s affirmative defenses of the Statute of Limitations. Order affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements. It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff’s intestate was struck by a motor vehicle owned by defendant Riley and operated by defendant 'Sanseverino (who has not heen served with process). Sanseverino gave the police and set forth in his accident report an incorrect address as that of Riley. Riley was a nonresident of this State at the time of the accident and, therefore, was not amenable to process. The [563]*563Statutes of Limitations were tolled during the period that he resided without the State and plaintiff had no information as to an address where Riley could be served pursuant to sections 253 and 254 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (Harvey v. Fussell, 13 Mise 2d 602, affd. 7 A D 2d 742; cf. Dobkm v. Chapman, 25 A D 2d 745, 746). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur. [53 Misc 2d 615.]

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, pain, medical expenses, etc., defendant Riley appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings 'County, dated May 8, 1967, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss said defendant’s affirmative defenses of the Statute of Limitations. Order affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements. It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff’s intestate was struck by a motor vehicle owned by defendant Riley and operated by defendant 'Sanseverino (who has not heen served with process). Sanseverino gave the police and set forth in his accident report an incorrect address as that of Riley. Riley was a nonresident of this State at the time of the accident and, therefore, was not amenable to process. The [563]*563Statutes of Limitations were tolled during the period that he resided without the State and plaintiff had no information as to an address where Riley could be served pursuant to sections 253 and 254 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (Harvey v. Fussell, 13 Mise 2d 602, affd. 7 A D 2d 742; cf. Dobkm v. Chapman, 25 A D 2d 745, 746). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur. [53 Misc 2d 615.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 562, 286 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-riley-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack