Lane v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lane v. City of New York

259 A.D.2d 596, 686 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2483

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 596 (Lane 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

Lane v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 596, 686 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated April 28, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which was to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the Statute of Limitations on a wrongful death cause of action had expired (see, EPTL 5-4.1 [1]), the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to amend the complaint to assert such a cause of action. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated April 28, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which was to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the Statute of Limitations on a wrongful death cause of action had expired (see, EPTL 5-4.1 [1]), the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to amend the complaint to assert such a cause of action. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 596, 686 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack