Lozada v. Baeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lozada v. Baeck

225 A.D.2d 405, 640 N.Y.2d 3, 640 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2708

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 405 (Lozada v. Baeck) 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

Lozada v. Baeck, 225 A.D.2d 405, 640 N.Y.2d 3, 640 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS Court correctly applied a one year and 90 day limitations period from the date of plaintiffs 18th birthday (General Municipal Law §§ 50-i, 50-k [6]; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7401 [2] [New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 20 (2); L 1969, ch 1016, § 1, as amended]; CPLR 208, 105 [j]). There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that the three-year limitations period applicable at the time his cause of action accrued should apply, the action having been instituted after the July 13, 1979 effective date of the statutory amendments providing for a one year and 90 day limitations period (General Municipal Law § 50-k [8]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

The IAS Court correctly applied a one year and 90 day limitations period from the date of plaintiffs 18th birthday (General Municipal Law §§ 50-i, 50-k [6]; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7401 [2] [New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 20 (2); L 1969, ch 1016, § 1, as amended]; CPLR 208, 105 [j]). There is no merit to plaintiffs argument that the three-year limitations period applicable at the time his cause of action accrued should apply, the action having been instituted after the July 13, 1979 effective date of the statutory amendments providing for a one year and 90 day limitations period (General Municipal Law § 50-k [8]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 405, 640 N.Y.2d 3, 640 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lozada-v-baeck-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack