Legal Opinion
Yun Jeong Koo v. Carlton St. Bernard
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 14, 1977PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHarold Hyman, J.
This motion made by plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [b]), to dismiss defendant’s affirmative *776defense, is on first impression one that brings to the forefront a needful interpretation of CPLR article 14-A, particularly CPLR 1411 and CPLR 1412, which first became effective September 1,1975.
The facts in the instant matter, as presented by the papers, are as follows:
Yun Jeong Koo is an infant under the age of 18 years; actually it is claimed she was only four years and 10 months old at the time of the occurrence. The infant, by her "parents and guardians”, brings this action to recover…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Holodook v. SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Camardo v. New York State RailwaysNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Stone v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Verni v. JohnsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Snell v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cooper v. County of RensselaerNew York Supreme Court · 1999
- Republic Insurance v. MichelDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995
- Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.New York Supreme Court · 2000
- Vandine v. Marley, No. Cv 95 0124656 (Feb. 15, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996