§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

10 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 456 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. 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"

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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).

  8. Elrac, Inc. v. Exum

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8961 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    2011-12-13 In the Matter of ELRAC, INC., Appellant, v. Birtis EXUM, Respondent. Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale (Michael F. Ingham of counsel), for appellant. Robin Grumet, New York City, and Richard M. Kass for respondent. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale (Michael F. Ingham of counsel), for appellant. Robin Grumet, New York City, and Richard M. Kass for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT SMITH, J. [1] We hold that a self-insured employer

  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