From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Respass v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05043.

Decided May 3, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated April 30, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Roger C. Capozzi, Jr., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred.

Friedman Simon, Jericho, N.Y. (Marie G. Costello of counsel), for appellant.

Milton M. Witchel, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Emanuel N. Srebro of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff's action was not subject to the seven-year statute of limitations for crime victims provided by CPLR 213-b(1). There was no causal connection between the plaintiff's injuries and the defendant's criminal conviction ( see Koerick v. Lotito, 262 A.D.2d 367; Boice v. Burnett, 245 A.D.2d 980). Thus, this action is governed by, and barred by the expiration of, the three-year period of limitations set forth in CPLR 214(5).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Respass v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 2004
7 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Respass v. Dean

Case Details

Full title:KYM RESPASS, appellant, v. JAMES F. DEAN, defendant, ROGER C. CAPOZZI…

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

Date published: May 3, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 576

Citing Cases

Rosado v. Estime

Research discloses that the benefit of CPLR 213–b has been denied only in those cases where there was no…

Rosado v. Estime

Research discloses that the benefit of CPLR 213-b has been denied only in those cases where there was no…