Wilkinson v. County of Orange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilkinson v. County of Orange

293 A.D.2d 602, 740 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3723

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 602 (Wilkinson v. County of Orange) 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

Wilkinson v. County of Orange, 293 A.D.2d 602, 740 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 30, 2001, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the defendants’ contentions that the index number used in this action was purchased by the plaintiff for a prior, different action, and that an order of the Supreme Court, dated April 14, 2000, dismissed such prior action. Thus, the plaintiff was not required to purchase a new index number, and his failure to do so does not mandate dismissal of the action. Consequently, his claim is not time barred pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i (see CPLR 304, 306-a; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 30, 2001, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the defendants’ contentions that the index number used in this action was purchased by the plaintiff for a prior, different action, and that an order of the Supreme Court, dated April 14, 2000, dismissed such prior action. Thus, the plaintiff was not required to purchase a new index number, and his failure to do so does not mandate dismissal of the action. Consequently, his claim is not time barred pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i (see CPLR 304, 306-a; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 602, 740 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-county-of-orange-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack