Mendoza v. Sarfate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendoza v. Sarfate

211 A.D.2d 767, 621 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 693

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 767 (Mendoza v. Sarfate) 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

Mendoza v. Sarfate, 211 A.D.2d 767, 621 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated October 25, 1993, as dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence introduced at the hearing on the issue of service of process established that the searches which the plaintiff conducted of Post Office and Department of Motor Vehicle records, almost two years after the defendant had moved to Arizona, produced a New York address for her. In addition, the process server testified that when he attempted service at a residence where, according to Department of Motor Vehicles records, the defendant’s husband resided, a woman inside the dwelling acknowledged that she was the defendant. Accordingly, since the plaintiff had no reasonable basis to conclude that the defendant had moved to another State until after the Statute of Limitations had expired, the defendant’s attempt to invoke CPLR 207 (3) is improper and the tolling provision set forth in CPLR 207 applies (cf., Yarusso v Arbotowicz, 41 NY2d 516). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated October 25, 1993, as dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence introduced at the hearing on the issue of service of process established that the searches which the plaintiff conducted of Post Office and Department of Motor Vehicle records, almost two years after the defendant had moved to Arizona, produced a New York address for her. In addition, the process server testified that when he attempted service at a residence where, according to Department of Motor Vehicles records, the defendant’s husband resided, a woman inside the dwelling acknowledged that she was the defendant. Accordingly, since the plaintiff had no reasonable basis to conclude that the defendant had moved to another State until after the Statute of Limitations had expired, the defendant’s attempt to invoke CPLR 207 (3) is improper and the tolling provision set forth in CPLR 207 applies (cf., Yarusso v Arbotowicz, 41 NY2d 516). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 767, 621 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-sarfate-nyappdiv-1995.