133 A.D.2d 76 (1987)

Mary Rachlin, Respondent, v. Miriam De L. Ortiz, Also Known as Miriam De Lapaz, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

August 3, 1987

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant could not be located prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations because of a change in her name and/or a change in her address (see, Doyon v Bascom, 38 A.D.2d 645, 645-646; Feinstein v Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 241-242; cf., Thomas v Sousa, 51 A.D.2d 1028, 1029, lv dismissed 40 N.Y.2d 806, 989). Further, we note that "the availability of statutory methods of acquiring personal jurisdiction other than by personal delivery within the State makes inapplicable the tolling provisions of CPLR 207" (see, Yarusso v Arbotowicz, 41 N.Y.2d 516, 519; see also, Dobkin v Chapman, 21 N.Y.2d 490). Therefore, since the plaintiff conceded that the Statute of Limitations had expired and failed to show that the period of limitation was tolled, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred should have been granted.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases