Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

239 A.D.2d 263

Tarrab v. Tarrab

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1997-05-20

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1999

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 9, 1996, dismissing the action as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

¶2The motion court correctly held that long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302 [a] [1]) could have been obtained over defendant with respect to both of plaintiff’s causes of action, the first of which alleges the parties’ maintenance of a joint bank account in New York and defendant’s drawing of a check on that account to plaintiff’s order that was dishonored for insufficient *264funds, and the second of which alleges defendant’s withdrawal of funds from the account in an amount that exceeded his interest therein (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Suarez, 526 F Supp 1262; Catauro v Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 AD2d 747; cf., Masonite Corp. v Hellenic Lines, 412 F Supp 434, 438-439). Accordingly, the tolling provision of CPLR 207 does not apply (CPLR 207 [3]), and the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

/239/ad2d/263 · .json · Public domain