Summary
tolling provision unavailable "[b]ecause statutory authorization existed for obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant by means other than personal delivery of the summons within this State"
Summary of this case from Plitman v. LeibowitzOpinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
This action, commenced more than three years after the causes of action accrued, should have been dismissed as time barred. Because statutory authorization existed for obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant by means other than personal delivery of the summons within this State, the tolling provision of CPLR 207 was unavailable to salvage the plaintiff's action (see, Yarusso v Arbotowicz, 41 N.Y.2d 516; Rachlin v Ortiz, 133 A.D.2d 76). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.