Asch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Asch v. City of New York

34 A.D.2d 778, 310 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4666

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

DecidedMay 26, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 778 (Asch v. City of New York) 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

Asch v. City of New York, 34 A.D.2d 778, 310 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered, in this personal injury action, on October 4, 1968, granting leave to- add plaintiff’s wife as a party plaintiff herein and to serve an amended complaint asserting a cause of action for loss of consortium, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion denied. The accident giving rise to this action occurred on October 21, 1966. It was not until August 20, 1968 that the present motion was made. Accordingly, the wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium is time barred against the city by virtue of section 50-i of the General Municipal Law which requires that an action against the city “ shall be commenced within one year and ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based ”. Such a claim may not now be asserted in this action by virtue of Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Go. (22 N Y 2d 498, 507-508) wherein it was specifically stated that: — “ Where there is a cause of action * * * pending, the wife’s consortium action, if not time-barred, should be joined with her husband’s claim”. (Emphasis added.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, entered, in this personal injury action, on October 4, 1968, granting leave to- add plaintiff’s wife as a party plaintiff herein and to serve an amended complaint asserting a cause of action for loss of consortium, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion denied. The accident giving rise to this action occurred on October 21, 1966. It was not until August 20, 1968 that the present motion was made. Accordingly, the wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium is time barred against the city by virtue of section 50-i of the General Municipal Law which requires that an action against the city “ shall be commenced within one year and ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based ”. Such a claim may not now be asserted in this action by virtue of Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Go. (22 N Y 2d 498, 507-508) wherein it was specifically stated that: — “ Where there is a cause of action * * * pending, the wife’s consortium action, if not time-barred, should be joined with her husband’s claim”. (Emphasis added.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 778, 310 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asch-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack