Legal Opinion
Glamm v. City of Amsterdam
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 10, 1978PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Carrol S. Walsh, J.
Motion by defendant for an "order” dismissing the complaint herein "on the grounds that the Notice of Claim and *992the summons and complaint were not served within the time provided by Section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, nor within the time prescribed by Section 214 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules”. Plaintiff opposes the motion claiming that CPLR 205 (subd [a]) is applicable and controlling.
More than nine years ago, on April 26, 1969, plaintiff came upon the scene of a fire in the City of Amsterdam and undertook to assist the regularly employed,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- De Crosta v. A. Reynolds Construction & Supply Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Smith v. Rensselaer CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Hotaling v. General Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Claim of Glamm v. City of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Fire DepartmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
3Cited by3 opinions
- Glamm v. AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Glamm v. AllenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Glamm v. City of AmsterdamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979