Stillman v. New Jersey Transit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stillman v. New Jersey Transit

224 A.D.2d 348, 638 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1473

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 348 (Stillman v. New Jersey Transit) 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

Stillman v. New Jersey Transit, 224 A.D.2d 348, 638 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the action as against defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority and The Long Island Railroad as time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276 (2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs contention that the Statute of Limitations was tolled from the time the notice to appear for an oral deposition was served until the time that examination was completed. Public Authorities Law § 1276 does not require that a plaintiff wait until an oral examination has been completed before filing the summons and complaint. Moreover, "[t]he statute contemplates and requires only a 30-day waiting period [following service of the notice of claim on the public authority]. Therefore, 30 days is the maximum extension of time plaintiff is entitled to under CPLR 204 (a).” (Burgess v Long Is. R. R. Auth., 79 NY2d 777, 779 [emphasis added]; see also, Rose v Metro N. Commuter R. R., 143 AD2d 993, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 994). Regardless of when the oral examination took place, plaintiff could have commenced the action any time after October 9, 1993, 30 days after the notice of claim was served. He did not file the complaint until August 8, 1994, which was beyond the one-year-and-30-day limit (Burgess v Long Is. R. R. Auth., supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the action as against defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority and The Long Island Railroad as time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276 (2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs contention that the Statute of Limitations was tolled from the time the notice to appear for an oral deposition was served until the time that examination was completed. Public Authorities Law § 1276 does not require that a plaintiff wait until an oral examination has been completed before filing the summons and complaint. Moreover, "[t]he statute contemplates and requires only a 30-day waiting period [following service of the notice of claim on the public authority]. Therefore, 30 days is the maximum extension of time plaintiff is entitled to under CPLR 204 (a).” (Burgess v Long Is. R. R. Auth., 79 NY2d 777, 779 [emphasis added]; see also, Rose v Metro N. Commuter R. R., 143 AD2d 993, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 994). Regardless of when the oral examination took place, plaintiff could have commenced the action any time after October 9, 1993, 30 days after the notice of claim was served. He did not file the complaint until August 8, 1994, which was beyond the one-year-and-30-day limit (Burgess v Long Is. R. R. Auth., supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 348, 638 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillman-v-new-jersey-transit-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack