Chapin v. Pine Plains Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapin v. Pine Plains Central School District

283 A.D.2d 454, 724 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4991

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 454 (Chapin v. Pine Plains Central School District) 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

Chapin v. Pine Plains Central School District, 283 A.D.2d 454, 724 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from modifying the plaintiffs’ health insurance coverage, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated June 30, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as time-barred and denied, as academic, their cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated January 10, 2001, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 30, 2000, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 10, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 10, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ action as time-barred (see, Matter of Armstrong v Centerville Fire Co., 83 NY2d 937; Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695; Board of Educ. v Ambach, 49 NY2d 986, cert denied 449 US 874).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from modifying the plaintiffs’ health insurance coverage, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated June 30, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as time-barred and denied, as academic, their cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated January 10, 2001, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.