Balzano v. Port of New York Authority
| Decision Date | 15 February 1965 |
| Citation | 256 N.Y.S.2d 495,23 A.D.2d 573 |
| Parties | Christoforo BALZANO, Appellant, v. PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Alvin I. Apfelberg, New York City, for appellant; Benjamin H. Siff, New York City, of counsel.
Sidney Goldstein, New York City, for respondent; Michael S. Zarin, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, BRENNAN, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 21, 1962, which granted the defendant's motion to set aside the service of process and dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over its person and over the subject matter of the action; and (2) from the judgment of dismissal entered on said date.
Order affirmed, without costs.
Appeal from judgment dismissed, without costs. The record as submitted does not contain any judgment.
This action was instituted more than a year after the accident occurred and was therefore not timely brought (L.1950, ch. 301, § 7, McK.Unconsol.Laws, § 7107; Trippe v. Port of New York Authority, 14 N.Y.2d 119, 249 N.Y.S.2d 409, 198 N.E.2d 585).
The fact that a prior action instituted by the plaintiff in a federal court was dismissed on the plaintiff's own motion, for lack of diversity jurisdiction, within less than one year prior to the commencement of the second action, did not render applicable the saving provisions of section 23 of the former Civil Practice Act (cf. Schwertfeger v. Scandinavian American Line, 186 App.Div. 89, 174 N.Y.S. 147, affd. on opinion below, 226 N.Y. 696, 123 N.E. 888; Kaplan v. Uribe, 286 App.Div. 156, 142 N.Y.S.2d 41; Matter of Keep, 241 App.Div. 556, 272 N.Y.S. 713, affd. sub. nom. Matter of Keep v. City of Lockport, 266 N.Y. 583, 195 N.E. 210; McDonough v. Cestare, 3 A.D.2d 201, 202, 159 N.Y.S.2d 616, 618; Rao v. Port of New York Authority, D. C., 122 F.Supp. 595, affd. 2 Cir., 222 F.2d 362).
[For opinion at Special Term, see 232 N.Y.S.2d 776.]
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.(PATH)
...N.Y.S.2d at 341; accord Balzano v. Port of New York Authority, 232 N.Y.S.2d 776, 778 (Sup.Ct.Kings County 1962), aff'd, 23 A.D.2d 573, 256 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2d Dep't 1965). Rather, it is "an integral part of the right to enforce an action" against the Port Authority, Balzano, 232 N.Y.S.2d at 77......
-
Lee v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 79 Civ. 4050(GLG).
...but rather a condition precedent. Balzano v. Port of New York Authority, 232 N.Y.S.2d 776 (Sup.Ct.1962), aff'd, 23 A.D.2d 573, 256 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2d Dep't 1965). Conditions precedent were distinguished from statutes of limitation in Kaplan v. Uribe, 286 A.D. 156, 158, 142 N.Y.S.2d 41, 42 (1s......
-
Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc. v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.
...796, 525 N.Y.S.2d 343; Savino v. Demiglia, 133 A.D.2d 389, 519 N.Y.S.2d 384), CPLR 205(a) is inapplicable (see, Balzano v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 23 A.D.2d 573, 256 N.Y.S.2d 495). The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for the imposition of sanctions.......
-
Smith v. Rensselaer County
...statutory limitation and no other. (Cf. Cimo v. State of New York, 306 N.Y. 143, 150, 116 N.E.2d 290, 294; Balzano v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 23 A.D.2d 573, 256 N.Y.S.2d 495.) When the Legislature enacted article 2 of the CPLR (eff. Sept. 1, 1963), however, the question was raised anew whether ......