Vizzari v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vizzari v. Hernandez

271 A.D.2d 439, 707 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3779

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 439 (Vizzari v. Hernandez) 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

Vizzari v. Hernandez, 271 A.D.2d 439, 707 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated February 22, 1999, which granted the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated."

Contrary to a prior decision and order of this Court, which was relied upon by the Supreme Court in dismissing the instant action in the order now under review, the Court of Appeals has determined that the infancy toll contained in CPLR 208 is effective notwithstanding steps taken by a legal representative to pursue an infant’s claim (see, Henry v City of New York, 94 NY2d 275, revg 244 AD2d 93). Applying the infancy toll to the facts of this case, we find that the claims contained in the complaint were timely interposed. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated February 22, 1999, which granted the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated."

Contrary to a prior decision and order of this Court, which was relied upon by the Supreme Court in dismissing the instant action in the order now under review, the Court of Appeals has determined that the infancy toll contained in CPLR 208 is effective notwithstanding steps taken by a legal representative to pursue an infant’s claim (see, Henry v City of New York, 94 NY2d 275, revg 244 AD2d 93). Applying the infancy toll to the facts of this case, we find that the claims contained in the complaint were timely interposed. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 439, 707 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vizzari-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack