Define That Term #252
Define That Term #253

NY Court of Appeals Considers Statute of Limitations Issue

Gavel2At issue in GML, Inc. v Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 2007 NY Slip Op 07912 was whether, pursuant to CPLR 202,  the Tennessee statute of limitations applied to a legal malpractice claim commenced in New York by Tenesee plaintiffs.  The defendants were subject to jurisdiction in both jurisdictions.

CPLR 202 provides as follows:

An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply.

The plaintiffs asserted that because defendants were not subject to in personam jurisdiction in Tennessee, Tennessee's tolling provision was applicable.

The New York Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that:

This action was commenced in New York and, as such, it was not necessary to toll the statute of limitations since defendants — residents of New York — were amenable to suit in New York for the entire period of Tennessee's statute of limitations. It is irrelevant whether defendants are also subject to suit in Tennessee and unnecessary to determine whether defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in Tennessee. A conclusion to the contrary would cause the statute of limitations to be tolled indefinitely against these defendants. We do not believe that the Legislature intended this result in enacting CPLR 202.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.