Cleofoster Baptiste, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. “John Doe”, et al., Defendants–Respondents. (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Cleofoster Baptiste, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. “John Doe”, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

5890

Decided: November 01, 2011

Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman, Abdus–Salaam, JJ.

H. Fitzmore Harris, P.C., New York, for appellant. Lifflander & Reich, LLP, New York (Kent B. Dolan of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about March 10, 2011, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and denied plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint and for a default judgment against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiff's filing of this action was untimely, it was a nullity, “and there was no service period to extend” (Gonzalez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 29 AD3d 369, 370 [2006]; Croce v. City of New York, 69 AD3d 488 [2010] ). In the absence of an action pending against them, defendants' own tardiness in moving to “dismiss” did not constitute a waiver of the statute of limitations defense (see CPLR 3211[e] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

CLERK

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law