Rumola v. Maimonides Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rumola v. Maimonides Medical Center

88 A.D.3d 781, 930 N.Y.2d 902

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 781 (Rumola v. Maimonides Medical Center) 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

Rumola v. Maimonides Medical Center, 88 A.D.3d 781, 930 N.Y.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In 1998, Anna Rumola, as administratrix of the estate of Thomas Sharp, commenced an action against the defendant. On November 16, 1999, Anna Rumola died. In 2007 the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the action “with prejudice” due to the failure of the persons interested in the decedent’s estate to move for a substitution within a reasonable time. Dawn Rumola, as “Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Sharp,” subsequently commenced this action based on the same transactions and occurrences as those in the prior action.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Under the circumstances of this case, the dismissal of the prior action was for “neglect to prosecute,” rendering the exception [782]*782to the statute of limitations in CPLR 205 (a) unavailable to the plaintiff (see Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 520 [2005]; Flans v Federal Ins. Co., 43 NY2d 881, 882 [1978]; Bauer v Mars Assoc., 35 AD3d 333, 334 [2006]; cf. Freedman v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 9 AD3d 415 [2004]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Angiolillo, J.P, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In 1998, Anna Rumola, as administratrix of the estate of Thomas Sharp, commenced an action against the defendant. On November 16, 1999, Anna Rumola died. In 2007 the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the action “with prejudice” due to the failure of the persons interested in the decedent’s estate to move for a substitution within a reasonable time. Dawn Rumola, as “Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Sharp,” subsequently commenced this action based on the same transactions and occurrences as those in the prior action.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Under the circumstances of this case, the dismissal of the prior action was for “neglect to prosecute,” rendering the exception [782]*782to the statute of limitations in CPLR 205 (a) unavailable to the plaintiff (see Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 520 [2005]; Flans v Federal Ins. Co., 43 NY2d 881, 882 [1978]; Bauer v Mars Assoc., 35 AD3d 333, 334 [2006]; cf. Freedman v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 9 AD3d 415 [2004]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Angiolillo, J.P, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 781, 930 N.Y.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rumola-v-maimonides-medical-center-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack