Legal Opinion · Dissent

Glamm v. City of Amsterdam

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

Decided February 15, 1979Published

1Dissent

Mahoney, P. J., and Kane, J.,

dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum by Kane, J. Kane, J. (dissenting). We dissent. Since the tolling provisions of CPLR 205 apply to the period of limitation contained in section 50-i of the General Municipal Law for the commencement of an action against a municipality (Smith v Rensselaer County, 52 AD2d 384), plaintiffs commencement of this action within six months after the entry of the order of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of his compensation claim was timely (Hotaling v General Elec. Co., 12 NY2d 310). Unlike the situation…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smith v. Rensselaer CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  2. Hotaling v. General Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
  3. Glamm v. City of AmsterdamNew York Supreme Court · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API