You are here: / / MEASUREMENT OF THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF A NEW ACTION...
, ,

MEASUREMENT OF THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE TIME-BARRED) PURSUANT TO CPLR 205(A) AND CPLR 205-A CLARIFIED IN AN OPINION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, clarified how the six-month grace period for filing a new action after dismissal (CPLR 205(a) and 205-a) is measured:

This appeal provides our Court with an occasion to resolve some inconsistencies in decisional authority regarding the timing of the termination event from which the six-month grace period under CPLR 205(a) and 205-a are measured. Under certain circumstances, both statutes permit the plaintiff a six-month window to recommence an action that otherwise would be untimely, measured from the “termination” of a prior action. Is the termination of the prior action the date an order of dismissal is executed by the court, the date the order of dismissal is entered with the clerk, or the date that the order of dismissal is served upon other parties with notice of entry? Is the termination of the prior action delayed 30 days for the potential filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to CPLR 5513(a) or a motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), and further delayed by the appellate process when an actual appeal is undertaken, or is there no termination of the prior action until a final judgment is entered or served with notice of entry? The answer to these questions may make a crucial mathematical difference to the timeliness or untimeliness of actions commenced within or without the six-month grace periods under CPLR 205-a and 205(a). We conclude, for reasons stated below, that when no appeal is taken by a party from an order of dismissal, the six-month period for recommencing an action under CPLR 205-a, and by extension under CPLR 205(a), begins to run once 30 days have elapsed following service of the order of dismissal with notice of entry. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hillaire, 2026 NY Slip Op 00353, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a definitive discussion of how the six-month grace periods for the filing of a new otherwise time-barred action after dismissal pursuant to CPLR 205(a) and 205-a are measured.​

 

You might also like
COUNTY COURT’S ORDER MODIFIED TO ALLOW WITHHOLDING THE NAMES OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT AND UNDERCOVER OFFICERS UNTIL TRIAL AND RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE NARCOTICS SALES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HOMEOWNER HIRED CONTRACTORS TO REPAIR HER HOME AND VISITED THE PROPERTY AS THE WORK WAS BEING DONE SHE DID NOT DIRECT OR SUPERVISE THE WORK AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY, HERE THE ABILITY FOR UNLIMITED AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED; SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DID NOT FAIL TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARNG ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS MURDER CONVICTION ON THE GROUND OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, DECEDENT’S SON, SIGNED THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT WHEN HIS FATHER, WHO HAD DEMENTIA, WAS ADMITTED; THE NURSING HOME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF, BY SIGNING THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BIND DECEDENT TO ARBITRATION OF DECEDENT’S NEGLIGENCE/PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT... HERE THE PURPORTED TRANSFER BY DEED OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY TO A LIMITED...