Cane v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cane v. City of New York

209 A.D.2d 217, 618 N.Y.S.2d 314

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 217 (Cane 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

Cane v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 217, 618 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered May 18, 1993, which granted defendant Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority’s ("MABSTOA”) motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held no factual issue as to equitable estoppel is raised since MABSTOA was under no obligation to aid plaintiffs in prosecuting their claims and, rather than misleading plaintiffs, MABSTOA and New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA”) provided several indications within the statutory period that NYCTA was the proper party defendant (Collins v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 192 AD2d 464; Nowinski v City of New York, 189 AD2d 674; Reis v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 161 AD2d 288, lv denied 76 NY2d 707; Luka v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD2d 323, affd 63 NY2d 667). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered May 18, 1993, which granted defendant Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority’s ("MABSTOA”) motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held no factual issue as to equitable estoppel is raised since MABSTOA was under no obligation to aid plaintiffs in prosecuting their claims and, rather than misleading plaintiffs, MABSTOA and New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA”) provided several indications within the statutory period that NYCTA was the proper party defendant (Collins v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 192 AD2d 464; Nowinski v City of New York, 189 AD2d 674; Reis v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 161 AD2d 288, lv denied 76 NY2d 707; Luka v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD2d 323, affd 63 NY2d 667). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 217, 618 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cane-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack