Tarrab v. Tarrab

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tarrab v. Tarrab

239 A.D.2d 263, 657 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5303

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

DecidedMay 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 263 (Tarrab v. Tarrab) 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

Tarrab v. Tarrab, 239 A.D.2d 263, 657 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 9, 1996, dismissing the action as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302 [a] [1]) could have been obtained over defendant with respect to both of plaintiff’s causes of action, the first of which alleges the parties’ maintenance of a joint bank account in New York and defendant’s drawing of a check on that account to plaintiff’s order that was dishonored for insufficient [264]*264funds, and the second of which alleges defendant’s withdrawal of funds from the account in an amount that exceeded his interest therein (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Suarez, 526 F Supp 1262; Catauro v Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 AD2d 747; cf., Masonite Corp. v Hellenic Lines, 412 F Supp 434, 438-439). Accordingly, the tolling provision of CPLR 207 does not apply (CPLR 207 [3]), and the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 9, 1996, dismissing the action as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302 [a] [1]) could have been obtained over defendant with respect to both of plaintiff’s causes of action, the first of which alleges the parties’ maintenance of a joint bank account in New York and defendant’s drawing of a check on that account to plaintiff’s order that was dishonored for insufficient [264]*264funds, and the second of which alleges defendant’s withdrawal of funds from the account in an amount that exceeded his interest therein (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Suarez, 526 F Supp 1262; Catauro v Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 AD2d 747; cf., Masonite Corp. v Hellenic Lines, 412 F Supp 434, 438-439). Accordingly, the tolling provision of CPLR 207 does not apply (CPLR 207 [3]), and the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 263, 657 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarrab-v-tarrab-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack