Arrigo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arrigo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

244 A.D.2d 208, 664 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 208 (Arrigo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arrigo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 244 A.D.2d 208, 664 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered July 9, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss this personal injury action as time-barred, unanimously affirmed.

We reject plaintiff’s contention that the information he provided to defendant’s personnel on the day of the accident constituted a valid demand or claim in satisfaction of Public Authorities Law § 1276 (1). As there is no other evidence of a demand or claim having been presented within the one-year statutory period for commencing an action (Public Authorities Law § 1276 [2]), the complaint was properly dismissed. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered July 9, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss this personal injury action as time-barred, unanimously affirmed.

We reject plaintiff’s contention that the information he provided to defendant’s personnel on the day of the accident constituted a valid demand or claim in satisfaction of Public Authorities Law § 1276 (1). As there is no other evidence of a demand or claim having been presented within the one-year statutory period for commencing an action (Public Authorities Law § 1276 [2]), the complaint was properly dismissed. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 208, 664 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrigo-v-metro-north-commuter-railroad-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack