Case ID: ad3d_89/html/0436-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cleofoster Baptiste, Appellant, v “John Doe” et al., Respondents.
    [931 NYS2d 868]
   Since plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.