Jacquez v. Campouerde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacquez v. Campouerde

309 A.D.2d 903, 766 N.Y.S.2d 89

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 903 (Jacquez v. Campouerde) 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

Jacquez v. Campouerde, 309 A.D.2d 903, 766 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages [904]*904for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 6, 2002, which, upon reargument, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court dismissed his first action because he failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to invoke the six-month extension contained in CPLR 205 (a) to recommence his terminated action (see Schiavone v 801 S. Fulton Ave. Co., 295 AD2d 493 [2002]; County of Rockland v Coakley, 235 AD2d 782 [1997]; cf. Matter of Winston v Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd., 224 AD2d 160 [1996]). Since the CPLR 205 (a) extension was not available, the plaintiffs second action, which was commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations, was time-barred (see Schiavone v 801 S. Fulton Ave. Co., supra). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages [904]*904for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 6, 2002, which, upon reargument, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court dismissed his first action because he failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to invoke the six-month extension contained in CPLR 205 (a) to recommence his terminated action (see Schiavone v 801 S. Fulton Ave. Co., 295 AD2d 493 [2002]; County of Rockland v Coakley, 235 AD2d 782 [1997]; cf. Matter of Winston v Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd., 224 AD2d 160 [1996]). Since the CPLR 205 (a) extension was not available, the plaintiffs second action, which was commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations, was time-barred (see Schiavone v 801 S. Fulton Ave. Co., supra). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 903, 766 N.Y.S.2d 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacquez-v-campouerde-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack