Cruz v. City of New York

232 A.D.2d 446, 648 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10151
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 29, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the service of a demand by the City of New York for examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h does not toll the one year and 90-day Statute of Limitations contained in General Municipal Law § 50-i (see, Lowinger v City of New York, 64 AD2d 888, 889-890; see also, Graber v City of New York, 89 AD2d 598; Astromovich v Huntington School Dist. No. 3, 80 AD2d 628, 629, affd 56 NY2d 634; Joiner v City of New York, 26 AD2d 840). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Cruz v. City of New York, 232 A.D.2d 446, 648 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

232 A.D.2d 446 (Cruz v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cinqumani v. County of Nassau
28 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)