Place v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Place v. Schwartz

100 A.D.2d 963, 475 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18105

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

DecidedApril 30, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.2d 963 (Place v. Schwartz) 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

Place v. Schwartz, 100 A.D.2d 963, 475 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered February 16, 1983, which granted defendant Atlantic Richfield Co.’s motion for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as against it on the ground that her action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. H Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and defendant Atlantic Richfield Co.’s motion denied. 11A copy of the summons and complaint was concededly delivered to the Sheriff of the county in which plaintiff’s cause of action arose one day before the expiration of the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations. It is also conceded that defendant Atlantic Richfield Co. was served within 60 days thereafter pursuant to the provisions of the Business Corporation Law. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s cause of action was interposed within three years of its accrual (CPLR 203, subd [b], par 5; Hartford Ins. Co. v Universal Elec. Co., 97 AD2d 498). 11 The case of Arce v Sybron Corp. (82 AD2d 308) has no application to these facts. Arce v Sybron Corp. (supra) did not involve the delivery of a summons and complaint to the Sheriff of the county where the cause of action arose, and that mode of obtaining the 60-day toll of CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5) was not invalidated by the holding in that case (see Hartford Ins. Co. v Universal Elec. Co., supra). Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Eiber, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered February 16, 1983, which granted defendant Atlantic Richfield Co.’s motion for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as against it on the ground that her action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. H Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and defendant Atlantic Richfield Co.’s motion denied. 11A copy of the summons and complaint was concededly delivered to the Sheriff of the county in which plaintiff’s cause of action arose one day before the expiration of the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations. It is also conceded that defendant Atlantic Richfield Co. was served within 60 days thereafter pursuant to the provisions of the Business Corporation Law. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s cause of action was interposed within three years of its accrual (CPLR 203, subd [b], par 5; Hartford Ins. Co. v Universal Elec. Co., 97 AD2d 498). 11 The case of Arce v Sybron Corp. (82 AD2d 308) has no application to these facts. Arce v Sybron Corp. (supra) did not involve the delivery of a summons and complaint to the Sheriff of the county where the cause of action arose, and that mode of obtaining the 60-day toll of CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5) was not invalidated by the holding in that case (see Hartford Ins. Co. v Universal Elec. Co., supra). Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 963, 475 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/place-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack