From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salamon v. Charney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 23, 2000
269 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 23, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered July 14, 1999, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Craig M. Gruber, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Saul Rudes, for Defendants-Appellants.

TOM, J.P., RUBIN, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


This second action to recover a broker's fee was commenced after the six-year limitations period had run and after the January 1, 1998 effective date of current CPLR 306-b. Former CPLR 306 -b(b) related this action back to the timely commencement of a prior action to recover such fee that was dismissed for lack of proper service after January 1, 1998 and after the limitations period had run. We note that the second action was commenced within 120 days of the dismissal of the first, as former CPLR 306-b(b) required (see, Zaleski v. Mlynarkiewicz, 255 A.D.2d 379). Moreover, the "good cause" or "interest of justice" provisions of the current CPLR 306-b would apply to this case to extend plaintiff's time to serve (see, Memorandum of the Office of Court Administration #97-67R, New York State Legislative Annual 1997, 318, 319).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Salamon v. Charney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 23, 2000
269 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Salamon v. Charney

Case Details

Full title:FRED E. SALAMON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LEON CHARNEY, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 23, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 42

Citing Cases

Murphy v. Hoppenstein

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach, Lerner, JJ. We reject defendant Altman's argument that an…

Losquadro v. Sabbatini

Wholly unavailing is defendant's effort in his Reply Memorandum (at p 7) to limit 306-b extensions to…