§Why CasetextPricing

Contact Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Girtha Butler, Respondent,v.New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

    89 N.Y.2d 214 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 410 times
    Holding that CPLR § 214 applies to a cause of action to recover payments of first-party benefits by the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, a statutorily created body, against the insurer of a vehicle who denied no-fault coverage

  2. Montgomery v. Daniels

    38 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 376 times
    Finding the statute to be constitutional

  3. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Nelson

    67 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that a claim accrues when "all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court"

  4. Matter of McKenna v. County of Nassau

    61 N.Y.2d 739 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 113 times

    Decided January 17, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, LEO F. McGINITY, J. Edward G. McCabe, County Attorney ( Robert O. Boyhan of counsel), for appellant. Marc D. Matles for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The errors alleged by the County of Nassau on the motion to vacate the prior judgment do not constitute grounds for relief under CPLR 5015. Special Term abused its discretion

  5. Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

    55 N.Y.2d 184 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gurnee v Aetna Life Cas. Co. (55 NY2d 184, 193, cert denied 459 US 837), the Court of Appeals recognized, albeit in dicta, that the six-year statute of limitations, as provided in CPLR 213, applied to a cause of action based upon wrongfully withheld first-party benefits.

  6. Frank v. Travelers

    37 A.D.3d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 44 times
    Applying the six-year statute of limitation for contractual obligations instead of the three-year statute of limitations for liabilities imposed by statute because "the inclusion of terms in an insurance contract, which might be mandated by various statutes or regulations, does not necessarily alter the fundamentally contractual nature of the dispute"

  7. Hartnett v. New York City Transit Authority

    86 N.Y.2d 438 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 58 times
    In Hartnett, 86 N.Y.2d at 446-47, the New York Court of Appeals held that case law interpreting OSHA is "not binding" in construing PESHA because, unlike OSHA, PESHA applies to State public sector employers.

  8. Miller v. Schloss

    218 N.Y. 400 (N.Y. 1916)   Cited 497 times
    Holding the claim to be based on "the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another"

  9. Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Shaw

    52 N.Y.2d 818 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 69 times
    In Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw (52 NY2d 818 [1980]), this Court resolved the question whether self-insured entities were required to provide uninsured motorist benefits.

  10. Mvaic v. Eisenberg

    18 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1966)   Cited 88 times
    In MVAIC v. Eisenberg (18 N.Y.2d 1) Judge KEATING on behalf of the court discussed the purpose and scope of the remedial statute (Insurance Law, §§ 617, 618) in providing protection for innocent victims of "hit-and-run" accidents involving unknown vehicles and yet deterring the prosecution of fictitious claims.