Legal Opinion
Lipinski v. Skinner
District Court, N.D. New York
Decided December 9, 1988No. 88-CV-601PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
MUNSON, District Judge.
On November 4, 1988 plaintiff, David Lipinski, sought permission from this court for leave to file a late notice of claim as to the pendent state claims involved in this action. 1 As to these pendent state claims, this court is bound to apply state substantive law. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). The applicable statute in this instance, as both parties agree, is New York State General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-e (McKinney 1986) (Application for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Palazzo v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1978
- Piesco v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1988
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brown v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Costabile Ex Rel. Costabile v. County of WestchesterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Lipinski v. County of BroomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Polite v. ButtonDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1998