From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grasso v. Matarazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

finding tolling permissible because plaintiff could not "function in society" and "uncontradicted medical testimony established that the plaintiff suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia"

Summary of this case from Hwang v. Grace Rd. Church

Opinion

Argued October 16, 2001.

November 5, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful eviction, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), entered July 13, 2000, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint.

Mendes Mount, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kevin J. Philbin of counsel), for appellant.

Matthew S. Aboulafia, New York, N.Y. (David I. Aboulafia of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is time-barred by the applicable one-year Statute of Limitations. The uncontradicted medical testimony established that the plaintiff suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. Furthermore, he is unable to protect his legal rights because of an overall inability to function in society (see, McCarthy v. Volkswagen of Amer., 55 N.Y.2d 543, 548). Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the tolling provision of CPLR 208.

The defendant further seeks dismissal of the complaint based on improper service of the summons. However, service of process on an employee of the defendant who may be reasonably expected to convey the papers to the intended party establishes an all but conclusive presumption of valid service (see, Charnin v. Cogan, 250 A.D.2d 513). Here, service was made upon the defendant's son, who was also an employee, at his actual place of business. A hearing was held, after which it was determined that service was proper (see, Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Arrao, 100 A.D.2d 949).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grasso v. Matarazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

finding tolling permissible because plaintiff could not "function in society" and "uncontradicted medical testimony established that the plaintiff suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia"

Summary of this case from Hwang v. Grace Rd. Church

finding tolling permissible where "uncontradicted medical testimony established that the plaintiff suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia"

Summary of this case from Hwang v. Grace Rd. Church
Case details for

Grasso v. Matarazzo

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS GRASSO, RESPONDENT, v. SANTO SAL MATARAZZO, APPELLANT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 5, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 100

Citing Cases

Hwang v. Grace Rd. Church

Although mental illness alone does not compel statutory tolling for insanity and New York courts have…

Vega v. Gambino

The defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable justification for his failure to present his coworker's…