Legal Opinion · Dissent

Goglas v. New York City Housing Authority

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

Decided June 22, 1961Published

1Dissent

Eager, J. (dissenting in part).

The infant here was 12 years of age. He was within the “middle period” of infancy existing between the immature years (under 10 years of age) and the riper years, of ordinary physical and mental capacity. (See Russo v. City of New York, 258 N. Y. 344; Murphy v. Village of Fort Edward, 213 N. Y. 397.) An infant in this “middle period" is not considered to have the mental capacity to protect his or her rights. (Matter of Hogan v. City of Cohoes, 279 App. Div. 282, 285.) In fact, an infant must arrive at age 14 before he is given by law the right to proceed on his…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Murphy v. . Village of Fort EdwardNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  2. Russo v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. Hogan v. City of CohoesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  4. Schnee v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  5. Ringgold v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API