Luksic v. Killmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luksic v. Killmer

121 A.D.2d 607, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58591

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

DecidedJune 23, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 607 (Luksic v. Killmer) 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

Luksic v. Killmer, 121 A.D.2d 607, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage allegedly sustained as the result of a motorcycle accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered February 4, 1985, which granted the defendant’s motion for renewal and reargument, and thereupon vacated his default and dismissed the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Order affirmed, with costs.

This action, commenced more than three years after the cause of action accrued, was properly dismissed as time barred. Because statutory authorization existed for obtaining jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by means other than personal delivery of the summons within this State, the tolling provision of CPLR 207 was unavailable to salvage the plaintiff’s action (see, Yarusso v Arbotowicz, 41 NY2d 516). Accordingly, the order of Special Term is affirmed. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Fiber, 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 and property damage allegedly sustained as the result of a motorcycle accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered February 4, 1985, which granted the defendant’s motion for renewal and reargument, and thereupon vacated his default and dismissed the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Order affirmed, with costs.

This action, commenced more than three years after the cause of action accrued, was properly dismissed as time barred. Because statutory authorization existed for obtaining jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by means other than personal delivery of the summons within this State, the tolling provision of CPLR 207 was unavailable to salvage the plaintiff’s action (see, Yarusso v Arbotowicz, 41 NY2d 516). Accordingly, the order of Special Term is affirmed. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 607, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luksic-v-killmer-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack