Maryland Casualty Co. v. Draney
Decision Date | 14 August 1956 |
Citation | 155 N.Y.S.2d 845,2 Misc.2d 637 |
Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. William S. DRANEY, Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
Reilly, McLouth, Lines & Wilkens, Rochester (Nicholas R. Santoro, Rochester, of counsel), for the motion.
Samuel Fiandach, Rochester, opposed.
This action is based in negligence as a result of a motor vehicle collision occurring in New York State on November 28, 1951. At the time of the accident, the defendant was a resident of the State of New York, but prior to the running of the statute of limitations in such type of action, the defendant removed himself from the State of New York and took up residence in the State of Massachusetts, where he still resides.
The action was commenced May 23, 1956, by service of a summons and complaint in accordance with Sections 52 and 52-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice on the ground that the action was not commenced within the time permitted by law. The plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by reason of the provisions of Section 19 of the Civil Practice Act. As applicable to the facts of the case at bar Section 19 of the Civil Practice Act provides as follows:
Section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides for the service of a non-resident motor vehicle operator or owner by service upon the Secretary of State as his true and lawful attorney to receive service in any action arising out of accident or collision involving said motor vehicle or such non-resident operator. Further, such service is, by said section, given the same legal force and validity as if personal service within the state were made. Section 52-a makes applicable the provisions of Section 52 to a resident who departs from the state subsequent to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. Johnson
...v. Turpin, 206 Va. 539, 145 S.E.2d 135 (1965); Arrowood v. McMinn, 173 Tenn. 562, 121 S.W.2d 566 (1938); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Draney, 3 Misc.2d 637, 155 N.Y.S.2d 845 (Sup.Ct.1956); and cases cited in 55 A.L.R.3d 1158, supra. See an extensive analysis compiled in 55 A.L.R.3d 1158, 1170, ......
-
Caruso v. Bard
...of Chapter 263 of the Laws of 1943 sufficient. Guastella v. Reichenback, 208 Misc. 887, 145 N.Y.S.2d 696; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Draney, 2 Misc.2d 637, 155 N.Y.S.2d 845; Fuller v. Stuart, 3 Misc.2d 456, 153 N.Y.S.2d 188; Harvey v. Fussell, 13 Misc.2d 602, 177 N.Y.S.2d 234, affirmed w. o. ......
-
King v. Killum
...Caruso v. Bard, 20 Misc.2d 887, 194 N.Y.S.2d 535; Guastella v. Reichenback, 208 Misc. 887, 145 N.Y.S.2d 696; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Draney, 2 Misc.2d 637, 155 N.Y.S.2d 845). In the Law Revision Commission Report of 1943 referring to the present section 19, C.P.A. which was passed in 1943,......