Yarusso v. Arbotowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yarusso v. Arbotowicz

52 A.D.2d 582, 382 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165

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

DecidedApril 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 582 (Yarusso v. Arbotowicz) 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

Yarusso v. Arbotowicz, 52 A.D.2d 582, 382 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 29, 1975, which denied his motion for summary judgment, made on the ground that the action was time-barred. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Personal service upon the Secretary of State, in accordance with sections 253 and 254 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, tolled the Statute of Limitations (see Sadek v Stewart, 38 AD2d 655; Furey v Milgrom, 44 AD2d 91, 93). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.; Shapiro, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, [583]*583grant the motion and dismiss the complaint (see Goodemote v McClain, 40 AD2d 22).

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 29, 1975, which denied his motion for summary judgment, made on the ground that the action was time-barred. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Personal service upon the Secretary of State, in accordance with sections 253 and 254 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, tolled the Statute of Limitations (see Sadek v Stewart, 38 AD2d 655; Furey v Milgrom, 44 AD2d 91, 93). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.; Shapiro, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, [583]*583grant the motion and dismiss the complaint (see Goodemote v McClain, 40 AD2d 22).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 582, 382 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yarusso-v-arbotowicz-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack