Moore v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. City of New York

291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1291

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 386 (Moore 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

Moore v. City of New York, 291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 4, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendant to provide certain discovery, and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i.

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

The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i, the one-year and 90-day period in which the plaintiffs were required to commence this action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the municipal defendant began to run upon “the happening of the event[s] upon which the claim is based.” The events upon which the plaintiffs’ claim is based were the misidentification of the decedent’s corpse, the unauthorized autopsy, and the burial as a “John Doe,” all of which occurred more than one year and 90 days before the action was commenced (see, Jensen v City of New York, 288 AD2d 346).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 4, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendant to provide certain discovery, and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i.

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

The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i, the one-year and 90-day period in which the plaintiffs were required to commence this action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the municipal defendant began to run upon “the happening of the event[s] upon which the claim is based.” The events upon which the plaintiffs’ claim is based were the misidentification of the decedent’s corpse, the unauthorized autopsy, and the burial as a “John Doe,” all of which occurred more than one year and 90 days before the action was commenced (see, Jensen v City of New York, 288 AD2d 346).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack