§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

16 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. Mountain View Coach v. Storms

    102 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 454 times
    Holding that plaintiff who did not hire a substitute bus but rather used one of its reserves could still recover for loss of use

  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. Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp

    66 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, ordinarily, the statute of limitations would apply to claims asserted against newly added parties who have "been a complete stranger to the suit up to the point of the requested amendment," but acknowledging that permitting the amendment to relate back to that defendant would not be at odds with the policies underlying the statute of limitations where "within the statutory period, . . . defendant is fully aware that a claim is being made against him with respect to the transaction or occurrence involved in the suit"

  5. 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"

  6. Bulova Watch v. Celotex Corp.

    46 N.Y.2d 606 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 99 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the six-year statute of limitations period began anew with each new leak of a roof where contractor had made 20–year guarantee to repair roof

  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. 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.

  9. In re Elrac, Inc.

    38 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 13 times
    In Elrac, Inc., we interpreted the Workers' Compensation Law and determined that the phrase "any other liability whatsoever" could not be interpreted literally to bar an employee from recovering uninsured motorist benefits from an employer (id. at 328).

  10. DENISE v. NYC TR AUTH

    25 Misc. 3d 13 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)   Cited 3 times

    July 22, 2009. APPEAL from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Francis M. Alessandro, J.), dated May 7, 2007. The order granted defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of statute of limitations, and, upon amendment, dismissed the complaint as time-barred. Israel, Israel Purdy, LLP, Great Neck Jennifer Greenhalgh Howard of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Jones Jones O'Connell LLP, Brooklyn ( Agnes Neiger of counsel)