Cruz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. City of New York

232 A.D.2d 446, 648 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10151

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 446 (Cruz 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 446, 648 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack