From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Zaino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 15, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the appeal by Helen Marks from so much of the order as failed to grant her motion to dismiss the action as against her for lack of personal jurisdiction is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is otherwise affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The original action, which was timely brought, was nonetheless dismissed because the plaintiff had not been granted letters testamentary prior to commencing the action. After receiving letters testamentary, the plaintiff commenced this action.

The Supreme Court properly concluded, upon reargument, that this action, which was brought within six months of the dismissal of the first action, was timely commenced ( see, CPLR 205 [a]; Carrick v. Central Gen. Hosp., 51 N.Y.2d 242; George v. Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 N.Y.2d 170; Snay v. Cohoes Mem. Hosp., 110 A.D.2d 1021). The court correctly rejected the appellants' contentions that Dreger v. New York State Thruway Auth. ( 81 N.Y.2d 721), in which the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs' original actions therein were untimely, effectively overruled Carrick and George.

To the extent that Helen Marks seeks review of the alleged denial of her motion to dismiss the action as against her for lack of personal jurisdiction, we note that the Supreme Court's initial order granted the appellants' respective applications to dismiss the action as untimely, and did not reach Marks's claim that she had not been properly served with the summons and complaint. In opposing the plaintiff's motion to reargue that order, Marks did not raise the issue of personal jurisdiction. It therefore appears that the issue is pending and undecided by the Supreme Court, such that we may not address the argument on this appeal ( see, Daniels v. Judelson, 215 A.D.2d 623; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536, 542-543). Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brown v. Zaino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Brown v. Zaino

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BROWN, Respondent, v. EDWARD C. ZAINO et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 111

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Biderman

Since the motion court did not reach that branch of plaintiff's motion seeking to record Denise Biderman's…

Pepe v. Tannenbaum

We decline to consider the defendants' contentions regarding General Business Law § 771 Gen. Bus., as they…