Legal Opinion · Dissent

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Decided May 1, 2018No. 39Published

1Dissent

GARCIA, J. (dissenting).

I would hold that an action to recover no-fault benefits-whether from insurers *873or self-insurers-is subject to the six-year statute of limitations. As the majority acknowledges, the lower courts have, for **480decades, held that a no-fault claim against an insurance company is subject to the six-year limitation (majority op. at 195-196, 75 N.Y.S.3d at 476-77, 99 N.E.3d at 870-71 [collecting cases] ). And this Court has cited to the "applicable six-year Statute of Limitations" for such claims ( ***198Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184, 193, 448 N.Y.S.2d 145,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Kurcsics v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Montgomery v. DanielsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. Solnick v. WhalenNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. Dermatossian v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1996

15 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