Opinion
August 3, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sacks, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant could not be located prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations because of a change in her name and/or a change in her address (see, Doyon v. Bascom, 38 A.D.2d 645, 645-646; Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 241-242; cf., Thomas v Sousa, 51 A.D.2d 1028, 1029, lv dismissed 40 N.Y.2d 806, 989). Further, we note that "the availability of statutory methods of acquiring personal jurisdiction other than by personal delivery within the State makes inapplicable the tolling provisions of CPLR 207" (see, Yarusso v. Arbotowicz, 41 N.Y.2d 516, 519; see also, Dobkin v. Chapman, 21 N.Y.2d 490). Therefore, since the plaintiff conceded that the Statute of Limitations had expired and failed to show that the period of limitation was tolled, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred should have been granted. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.