Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionnegligencestatutesummary judgmentcorporationstatute of limitationssustained
plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutesummary judgmentcorporationstatute of limitationssustained

Related Cases

Labree v. Major, 111 R.I. 657, 306 A.2d 808
View Case »
Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 732
View Case »
Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., 758 F.3d 516
View Case »
Neely v. Club Med Management Services, Inc., 63 F.3d 166, 1996 A.M.C. 776
View Case »
Marine Midland Bank v. Miller, 512 F.Supp. 602
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rescildo by Rescildo v. R.H. Macy’s, 187 A.D.2d 112, 594 N.Y.S.2d 139

Facts

Kevin Rescildo, a Connecticut resident, sustained injuries resulting in blindness to his left eye from a defective children's belt manufactured by Sure Snap and sold by Fabil, both New York corporations. The belt was purchased from Bamberger's, a division of Macy's, in New York. The plaintiffs filed a personal injury action in February 1986, alleging negligence in the design of the belt. The defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by the Connecticut statute of limitations, which the plaintiffs contested based on jurisdictional grounds.

The infant plaintiff, Kevin Rescildo, is a Connecticut resident who, on July 8, 1982, sustained injuries resulting in blindness to his left eye. The accident, which occurred at the then five-year-old's home, involved an allegedly defective children's belt manufactured by defendant Sure Snap, a New York corporation, and then sold to defendant Fabil, a New York distributor.

Issue

Did the New York borrowing statute apply to import Connecticut's statute of limitations, and did Connecticut have in personam jurisdiction over the defendants?

Did the New York borrowing statute apply to import Connecticut's statute of limitations, and did Connecticut have in personam jurisdiction over the defendants?

Rule

The New York borrowing statute, CPLR 202, allows for the application of the statute of limitations of the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued, unless the plaintiff is a resident of New York, in which case New York's statute applies.

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.

Analysis

The court found that Sure Snap and Macy's did not have sufficient contacts with Connecticut to establish in personam jurisdiction, as they failed to demonstrate any business activities or presence in the state during the relevant period. Consequently, the court determined that the Connecticut statute of limitations could not be applied to these defendants under the borrowing statute. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument for the application of the doctrine of renvoi, which would have allowed for the use of New York's statute of limitations.

Accordingly, Sure Snap and Macy's have failed to establish that in personam jurisdiction could have been exercised over them in Connecticut during the relevant period, and the CPLR 202 borrowing statute is inapplicable.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the finding that Connecticut had in personam jurisdiction over Fabil but not over Sure Snap and Macy's. The summary judgment in favor of Sure Snap and Macy's was modified to reinstate the complaint against them, while the court upheld the jurisdictional findings regarding Fabil.

The order and judgment entered June 13, 1988, is, therefore, modified to vacate the grant of summary judgment to said defendants.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court reinstated their complaint against Sure Snap and Macy's, finding that the Connecticut statute of limitations could not be applied to them due to lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court reinstated their complaint against Sure Snap and Macy's, finding that the Connecticut statute of limitations could not be applied to them due to lack of jurisdiction.

You must be