Giovati v. Halmar Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giovati v. Halmar Corp.

245 A.D.2d 420, 666 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13056

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 420 (Giovati v. Halmar 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

Giovati v. Halmar Corp., 245 A.D.2d 420, 666 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated February 4, 1997, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint as time-barred is granted.

In a companion appeal, this Court held that a prior identical action between the parties should have been dismissed “with prejudice” (Giovati v Kavanagh, 245 AD2d 420 [decided herewith]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of the six-month extension of the Statute of Limitations provided by CPLR 205 (a), and the instant action must be dismissed. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Joy and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated February 4, 1997, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint as time-barred is granted.

In a companion appeal, this Court held that a prior identical action between the parties should have been dismissed “with prejudice” (Giovati v Kavanagh, 245 AD2d 420 [decided herewith]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of the six-month extension of the Statute of Limitations provided by CPLR 205 (a), and the instant action must be dismissed. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Joy and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 420, 666 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giovati-v-halmar-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack