§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

11 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. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

  7. Shtarkman v. Mvaic

    20 Misc. 3d 132 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)   Cited 6 times

    July 8, 2008. Insurance — Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation.

  8. Boulevard v. Mvaic

    19 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)   Cited 4 times

    April 14, 2008. Limitation of Actions — When Cause of Action Accrues.

  9. Acupuncture Works, P.C. v. Mvaic

    27 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Term 2010)   Cited 2 times

    April 9, 2010. Insurance — No-Fault Automobile Insurance — Recovery of First-Party No-Fault Benefits — Statute of Limitations. Civil Practice Law and Rules — § 214 (2) (Actions to be commenced within three years; for penalty created by statute).

  10. Transit Auth. v. Evans

    95 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 9 times

    October 11, 1983 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County, IRVING KRAMER, J. Richard K. Bernard ( Lawrence A. Silver and Peter Shaw of counsel), for appellant. Bertram Herman, P.C., for respondent. Per Curiam. On August 2, 1981, respondent was a passenger on a Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (hereafter MABSTOA) bus which was involved in a collision with an uninsured motor vehicle. Respondent sought to arbitrate his claim for personal injuries resulting therefrom and submitted

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation