13-CV-3098, 2014 WL 148631, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) (same), aff'd, 588 Fed.Appx. 57 (2d Cir.2014), However, the savings statute does not apply to claims that were dismissed for lack -‘of- - personal jurisdiction. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205(a) (providing that this section applies to. “an action [that] is timely commenced and is terminated- in any other manner than ... a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over [a] defendant”); Midwest Mem’l Grp., LLC v. Int’l Fund Servs. (Ir.) Ltd., No. 10-CV-8660, 2011 WL 4916407, at *6-(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2011) (noting that § 205(a)’s' “tolling provisions are not applicable where a prior action against the same defendant ha[d]’been terminated for lack- of personal jurisdiction”); Jacquez v. Campouerde, 309 A.D.2d 903, 766 N.Y.S.2d 89, 89 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the savings statute applies
holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot holding that the proper ground for dismissal of a  1983 action in which the plaintiff has failed to establish state action is lack of jurisdiction holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense holding that because a court previously dismissed an action against the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction the plaintiff was not entitled to inyoke the sixmonth extension contained in 205a to recommence his terminatedaction