Arrigo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

244 A.D.2d 208, 664 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11567
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

244 A.D.2d 208 (Arrigo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wolfson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
123 A.D.3d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)