Rinaldi v Rochford
2010 NY Slip Op 07320 [77 AD3d 720]
October 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 15, 2010


Michael Rinaldi, Appellant,
v
William J. Rochford et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Law Offices of Thomas J. Bailey & Associates, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (Nancy Pavlovic ofcounsel), for appellant.

Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Susan M. Ulrich of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated August 13, 2009, which granted the motion by thedefendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since this action was commenced after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the SupremeCourt properly granted the motion by the defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss thecomplaint as time-barred (see CPLR 214 [5]; Lessoff v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 58 AD3d 610, 611 [2009]; Tricoche v Warner Amex Satellite EntertainmentCo., 48 AD3d 671, 672 [2008]; Gem Flooring v Kings Park Indus., 5 AD3d 542,544 [2004]). Further, CPLR 205 (a) is inapplicable because a prior action seeking identical relief as issought in this action was properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Wydallis v UnitedStates Fid. & Guar. Co., 63 NY2d 872, 874 [1984]; Hebrew Inst. for Deaf & Exceptional Children v Kahana, 57 AD3d 734,735 [2008]; Levinsky v Mugermin, 52AD3d 477 [2008]; Gem Flooring v Kings Park Indus., 5 AD3d at 544).

To the extent that the plaintiff attempted to informally seek leave to effect late service of the originalsummons and complaint upon the defendants pursuant to CPLR 306-b, that affirmative relief shouldhave been sought in a notice of cross motion to the Supreme Court (see CPLR 2215; Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian,64 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2009]) and, in any event, was not available to the plaintiff under thecircumstances (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Walker v Chaman, 31 AD3d 751, 752[2006]; Matter of Rodamis v Cretan's Assn.Omonoia, Inc., 22 AD3d 859, 860 [2005]; Smith v Southside Hosp., 15 AD3d 387, 388 [2005]; Winter vIrizarry, 300 AD2d 472 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.