From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herbert v. Gabel Equipment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 20, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rosenblatt, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Immediately prior to the running of the Statute of Limitations on their causes of action based upon negligence and products liability, the plaintiffs filed a summons and complaint with the Sheriff of Orange County in order to toll the Statute of Limitations for 60 days pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (5). In reliance upon CPLR 1024, the plaintiffs named six unknown defendants as John Doe I through VI, describing them, respectively, as the manufacturer, assembler, installer, seller, prior owner and repairer of a certain diesel generator system which allegedly caused the plaintiff John Herbert's injuries. Subsequently, after ascertaining the true identity of the defendants within the 60-day extension period provided under CPLR 203 (b) (5) (i), the plaintiffs served upon them a copy of the original summons and complaint and an amended summons and complaint containing the actual names of the defendants.

The appellant's contention that the provisions of CPLR 1024 concerning unknown parties cannot be applied together with those of CPLR 203 (b) (5) to toll the Statute of Limitations under the circumstances of this case is without merit (cf. Gottlieb v County of Nassau, 92 A.D.2d 858; Brock v Bua, 83 A.D.2d 61). A reading of CPLR 203 (b) indicates that the statute does not, as the appellant urges, limit the availability of the 60-day extension period to cases dealing with "a co-defendant united in interest" (CPLR 203 [b]) with a defendant who was timely served.

We also note that the record supports Special Term's conclusion that genuine efforts were made by the plaintiffs to learn the true identity of all of the defendants prior to the running of the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiffs therefore properly employed the procedural mechanism made available by CPLR 1024 and 203 (b) under the unusual circumstances of this case. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Herbert v. Gabel Equipment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Herbert v. Gabel Equipment Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN HERBERT et al., Respondents, v. GABEL EQUIPMENT CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. the City of New York

While these rules explicitly extend only the period in which service of process must be made, New York courts…

U.S. Bank v. Pika

CPLR 1024 states, in relevant part, that when the identification of the "John Doe" party becomes known, "all…