Legal Opinion
Russo v. Waller
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 11, 1997PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Marvin E. Segal, J.
In Matter of Beary v City of Rye (44 NY2d 398, 410), the Court of Appeals explained that its "task” was to determine whether, "in relaxing the strictures of section 50-e in 1976, the Legislature intended that the changes it wrought apply to claims that accrued before September 1 of that year.” The *708Court of Appeals commented that, "[o]f course, had the amendatory language been explicit, we would have had no such burden. For our quest is not for what we might have preferred the Legislature to have done, but for what it in fact did. Since the direct answer…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McCaskey, Davies & Associates, Inc. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P. C.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Robinson v. . Robins Dry Dock Repair Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Mulligan v. MurphyNew York Court of Appeals · 1964
- Jorgensen v. SilvermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
3Cited by11 opinions
- Schweizer v. MulvehillDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Mason Tenders District Council Pension Fund v. MesseraDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Ruffolo v. GarbariniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Pelletreau & PelletreauDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Shirley v. DanzigerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.