Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park, Inc.

232 A.D.2d 374, 648 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 374 (Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park, Inc.) 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

Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 374, 648 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated August 2, 1995, which, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Joseph Kinsella, a police officer, was injured on July 5, 1990, while on duty on the defendant’s premises. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services on November 2, 1994. Since the action was commenced more than three years after the accrual of the action, it is barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214).

We reject the plaintiffs’ argument that the action was revived by the provisions of General Municipal Law § 205-e (2). The revival provisions of General Municipal Law § 205-e (2) only apply to actions which accrued between January 1, 1987, and its effective date of July 12, 1989. Since the plaintiffs’ action accrued after the July 12, 1989, effective date of General Municipal Law § 205-e, the revival provisions do not apply (see, Huebner v New York City Tr. Auth., 226 AD2d 678; McNulty v New York City Tr. Auth., 166 Misc 2d 219). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated August 2, 1995, which, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Joseph Kinsella, a police officer, was injured on July 5, 1990, while on duty on the defendant’s premises. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services on November 2, 1994. Since the action was commenced more than three years after the accrual of the action, it is barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214).

We reject the plaintiffs’ argument that the action was revived by the provisions of General Municipal Law § 205-e (2). The revival provisions of General Municipal Law § 205-e (2) only apply to actions which accrued between January 1, 1987, and its effective date of July 12, 1989. Since the plaintiffs’ action accrued after the July 12, 1989, effective date of General Municipal Law § 205-e, the revival provisions do not apply (see, Huebner v New York City Tr. Auth., 226 AD2d 678; McNulty v New York City Tr. Auth., 166 Misc 2d 219). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 374, 648 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsella-v-astroland-kiddie-park-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack