Kleila v. Bell Helmets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleila v. Bell Helmets, Inc.

216 A.D.2d 272, 627 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6002

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

DecidedJune 5, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 272 (Kleila v. Bell Helmets, Inc.) 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

Kleila v. Bell Helmets, Inc., 216 A.D.2d 272, 627 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated March 22, 1994, which denied his motion to restore the action to the court’s calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In granting the defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 327, the Supreme Court prohibited the defendant from raising the Statute of Limitations as a defense "in an action promptly commenced hereafter in the State of Tennessee”. The plaintiff commenced a new action approximately three years later in a Federal District Court in California. Since the plaintiff’s new action was neither promptly commenced nor commenced in Tennessee, the defendant did not violate the terms of the Supreme Court’s order by raising the Statute of Limitations defense in the Federal action in California. Thus, we reject the plaintiff’s contention that the action should be restored to the Supreme Court’s calendar. Balletta J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated March 22, 1994, which denied his motion to restore the action to the court’s calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In granting the defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 327, the Supreme Court prohibited the defendant from raising the Statute of Limitations as a defense "in an action promptly commenced hereafter in the State of Tennessee”. The plaintiff commenced a new action approximately three years later in a Federal District Court in California. Since the plaintiff’s new action was neither promptly commenced nor commenced in Tennessee, the defendant did not violate the terms of the Supreme Court’s order by raising the Statute of Limitations defense in the Federal action in California. Thus, we reject the plaintiff’s contention that the action should be restored to the Supreme Court’s calendar. Balletta J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 272, 627 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleila-v-bell-helmets-inc-nyappdiv-1995.