From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Familio v. Hersh

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 31, 2017
150 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

05-31-2017

Theresa FAMILIO, appellant, v. Maxine HERSH, et al., respondents.

Dell & Dean PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY [Scott T. Horn and Arshia Hourizadeh], of counsel), for appellant. Russo & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for respondent Maxine Hersh. Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, NY (Brian L. Smith of counsel), for respondent Frank King Chen Hon.


Dell & Dean PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY [Scott T. Horn and Arshia Hourizadeh], of counsel), for appellant.

Russo & Tambasco, Melville, NY (Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for respondent Maxine Hersh.

Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, NY (Brian L. Smith of counsel), for respondent Frank King Chen Hon.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), entered September 24, 2015, which granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly directed the dismissal of the complaint as time-barred on the ground that the provisions of CPLR 205(a) that toll the statute of limitations are inapplicable in this action because the plaintiff's prior action had been dismissed for neglect to prosecute (see CPLR 205[a] ; Webb v. Greater N.Y. Auto. Dealers Assn., Inc., 123 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 1 N.Y.S.3d 212 ; see generally Marrero v. Crystal Nails, 114 A.D.3d 101, 109, 978 N.Y.S.2d 257 ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the record of the dismissal of the prior action set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect to prosecute, which conduct demonstrated a general pattern of delay (see CPLR 205[a] ; Webb v. Greater N.Y. Auto. Dealers Assn., Inc., 123 A.D.3d at 1112, 1 N.Y.S.3d 212 ; see generally Marrero v. Crystal Nails, 114 A.D.3d at 109, 978 N.Y.S.2d 257 ).

HALL, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Familio v. Hersh

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 31, 2017
150 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Familio v. Hersh

Case Details

Full title:Theresa FAMILIO, appellant, v. Maxine HERSH, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 31, 2017

Citations

150 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4255
52 N.Y.S.3d 901

Citing Cases

Sokoloff v. Schor

Effective July 7, 2008, the statute was amended to require that courts dismissing actions for neglect to…

Richards v. Bd. of Fire Comm'rs of the Brentwood Fire Dist.

Accordingly, the tolling provision of CPLR 205(a) is inapplicable where, as here, over the course of nearly…