Amato v. Svedi
| Decision Date | 28 September 1970 |
| Citation | 35 A.D.2d 672,315 N.Y.S.2d 63 |
| Parties | Adiego AMATO, Appellant, v. Alexandro SVEDI, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Melton, Hand, Long & Burgess, Bay Shore, for defendant-respondent.
Floyd M. Lampert, Hollis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Before CHRIST, P.J., and RABIN, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and LATHAM, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an assault action to recover damages, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 1, 1970, which denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and granted defendant summary judgment.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff's motion granted.
On June 5, 1969 appellant commenced a prior action, in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, arising out of the assault in question. Appellant was allegedly assault on July 16, 1968 in Suffolk County by respondent, a Suffolk County resident. The complaint was dismissed because the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction over an assault committed outside its territorial boundary by a non-resident of the City of New York.
Appellant then commenced the instant action in Supreme Court, Queens County, on December 15, 1969. Respondent raised the defense of the Statute of Limitations, one year having elapsed since the cause of action accrued. Appellant moved to strike that defense on the ground that CPLR 205 (subd. (a)) permitted him to bring this second action within six months after termination of the prior action. The motion was denied, on the ground that appellant was not entitled to the six-month extension under CPLR 205 (subd. (a)) because the first action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction of respondent, i.e., that that action had never commenced.
In our opinion, appellant was entitled to bring this action within the statutory six-month period. For the purposes of CPLR 205 (subd. (a)), appellant's first action had commenced, because dismissal of that action was based upon lack of jurisdiction over respondent (Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533, 109 N.E. 594). There had been a mistake in the choice of forum. A defect of this nature is to be distinguished from a failure to achieve service of process upon the defendant. It is in the latter case that the action is deemed never to have commenced, thus preventing the application of CPLR 205 (subd. (a)) (Erickson v. Macy, 236 N.Y. 412, 140 N.E. 938).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charbonneau v. State
...of that prior action, but after the statute of limitations has expired, comes within the purview of CPLR 205(a) (Amato v. Svedi, 35 A.D.2d 672, 315 N.Y.S.2d 63; see also, Denehy v. St. John's Queens Hosp., 114 A.D.2d 991, 495 N.Y.S.2d 431 [wherein plaintiff was allowed to commence a wrongfu......
-
Kiluma v. Wayne State University, Docket No. 26235
...modification, we note in passing that Smalley is easily distinguishable on its facts and that a later decision. Amato v. Svedi, 35 A.D.2d 672; 315 N.Y.S.2d 63 (1970), has reaffirmed Our resolution of the present controversy comports well with our statement in Cronin v. Minster Press, 56 Mic......
-
Markoff v. South Nassau Community Hosp.
... ... v. Arker, 54 N.Y.2d 870, 872, 444 N.Y.S.2d 905, 429 N.E.2d 412) ... 3 To the extent that Amato v. Svedi, 35 A.D.2d 672, 315 N.Y.S.2d 63, supports the view that CPLR 205 (subd. [a] ) does apply if a defendant receives actual notice but there is ... ...
-
George v. Mt. Sinai Hospital
...on some flaw in the method of service, the section should be applicable (Siegel, New York Practice, § 52, at p. 54; see Amato v. Svedi, 35 A.D.2d 672, 315 N.Y.S.2d 63). While we need not now resolve this question, we note that this theory appears inconsistent with our decision in Smalley v.......