Yarusso v. Arbotowicz

41 N.Y.2d 516, 393 N.Y.S.2d 968, 362 N.E.2d 600 (1977)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Yarusso v. Arbotowicz

New York Court of Appeals
41 N.Y.2d 516, 393 N.Y.S.2d 968, 362 N.E.2d 600 (1977)

Facts

Antonio Yarusso (plaintiff) and Stanley Arbotowicz (defendant) were involved in a car accident in November 1968 in New York. Arbotowicz resided in New York at the time of the accident but moved to Florida in November 1970, where he resided until February 1972. Arbotowicz moved back to New York in January 1974. Yarusso wished to sue Arbotowicz regarding the accident. Accordingly, pursuant to the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (Vehicle Law), in September 1971, Yarusso served a summons and complaint on the New York secretary of state and mailed copies to Arbotowicz’s houseboat. However, Arbotowicz had moved from the houseboat to an apartment several months earlier, and the summons and complaint were returned to Yarusso with a note that Arbotowicz had moved with no known address. Yarusso tried to serve Arbotowicz again in November 1971. After serving the secretary of state, Yarusso mailed the summons and complaint to an address on 41st Street in Miami; however, that mail too was returned to Yarusso because Arbotowicz actually lived on 43rd street in Miami. In May 1974, Yarusso moved for a default judgment based on Arbotowicz’s failure to respond to the summonses and complaints purportedly served on Arbotowicz in 1971. Arbotowicz cross-moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction due to the lack of service. The court granted Arbotowicz’s motion to dismiss. In July 1974, while the parties’ dueling motions were pending, Yarusso personally served Arbotowicz with a summons and complaint for a new suit based on the 1968 accident. Arbotowicz moved for summary judgment on the ground that this second suit was time-barred. Yarusso responded that the statute of limitations did not expire because it was tolled pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 207. The supreme court denied Arbotowicz’s motion, and the appellate division affirmed. Arbotowicz appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership