Legal Opinion · Dissent

Robinson v. City of New York

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

Decided December 21, 1965Published

1Dissent

Stevens, J. (dissenting).

I dissent and vote to affirm. Under the statute (General Municipal Law, § 50-i, subd. 1) the action against the defendant was time-barred. The majority view recognizes this, but invokes the doctrine of equitable estoppel. I fail to see how it properly may be applied here. Section 50-e of the General Municipal Law requires in a case founded upon tort, where a notice of claim is required by law a's a condition precedent to the commencement of an action, that such notice be given within 90 days after the claim arises. If the city desires an examination relative to the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Teresta v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. Vermeule v. City of CorningAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
  3. Vandeweghe v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Woodcrest Construction Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Woodcrest Construction Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947

4 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