You are here: / / THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT TOLL WHILE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF STATE...

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT TOLL WHILE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF STATE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED OUT OF STATE, PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statute of limitations did not toll while defendant was out of state and the action was therefore time-barred:

The plaintiffs’ contention that the action was timely because they were entitled to the benefit of the tolling provision of CPLR 207 based on the defendant’s alleged absence from the state did not raise a question of fact. Under that statute, as relevant here, when a defendant leaves the state after an action has accrued, and is continually absent from the state for at least four months, the time of the defendant’s absence is not included in the time during which the action must be commenced. This tolling provision, however, does not apply “while jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be obtained without personal delivery of the summons to the defendant within the state” (CPLR 207[3] …). In other words, the toll will not apply if there is a means by which the defendant may be served notwithstanding his or her absence from the state … . Here, even during his alleged absence from New York State, the defendant was subject to service of process (see CPLR 302[a][2]; 308[5]; 313 …). The plaintiffs did not submit evidence establishing that the defendant was attempting to evade service of process by, for example, living secretly in a foreign country, such that no means of service of process on him was available … . MP v Davidsohn, 2019 NY Slip Op 01069, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

You might also like
THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FOOT UNDER A TIRE-WHEEL STOP IN A PARKING LOT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE WHEEL STOP WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AFTER FAILING TO ARGUE THAT DEFENDANTS WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, COULD NOT RAISE DEFENDANTS’ WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO COMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Circumstances, Court Properly Considered New Information Presented in a Surreply
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT ABUTTING LESSEE DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
DECEDENT DIED INTESTATE, COTENANTS’ INTERESTS IN THE REAL PROPERTY VESTED UPON DEATH, COTENANTS COULD THEREFORE CONVEY THEIR INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE DEEDS (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

PLAINTIFF WAS A NONMEMBER PURCHASER OF A MEMBER’S INTEREST IN THE LIMITED... CHILD’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS TO ALLOW HIM TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT...