Burgess v. Long Island R.R. Authority
| Decision Date | 16 April 1991 |
| Citation | 172 A.D.2d 302,568 N.Y.S.2d 385 |
| Parties | Derek BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, KUPFERMAN, ASCH and KASSAL, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on May 3, 1990, which granted the motion, pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(5), by defendant Long Island Railroad Authority to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained on September 2, 1988 when he fell after disembarking from a Long Island Railroad train near the Amagansett Station. Although a notice of claim was served on November 22, 1988, the summons and complaint were not served upon the Long Island Railroad Authority until October 3, 1989.
The effective statute of limitations for actions in tort against the Long Island Railroad has repeatedly been held to be one year and thirty days after the occurrence of the alleged accident. ( Public Authorities Law 1276[1], [2], and [6]; Andersen v. Long Island Railroad, 59 N.Y.2d 657, 463 N.Y.S.2d 407, 450 N.E.2d 213, rearg. den., 60 N.Y.2d 586, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 454 N.E.2d 127).
Plaintiff nevertheless claims entitlement to a three day extension of the limitations period merely because the accident occurred on a Friday evening, thereby allegedly preventing the plaintiff from presenting his claim until the offices of the Long Island Railroad Authority reopened on the following Monday morning. General Construction Law § 25-a(1) specifically provides, however, that an extension of the limitations period is permitted only when the limitations period "ends on a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday", rather than commencing thereon. Moreover, it is well settled that a cause of action for personal injuries accrues, for purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, on the date of the accident (Victorson v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. 37 N.Y.2d 395, 399, 373 N.Y.S.2d 39, 335 N.E.2d 275).
We therefore find that the plaintiff has failed to establish any entitlement to a period of limitations greater than one year and thirty days and has failed to establish any conduct on the part of defendant Long Island Railroad Authority, or its agents, that would estop said defendant from interposing the defense of the Statute of Limitations (Penner v. National...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santana v. Long Island R.R., Index No.: 2074/2010
...463 N.Y.S.2d 407, 450 N.E.2d 213, rearg. den., 60 N.Y.2d 586, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 454 N.E.2d 127)." Burgess v. Long Island R.R. Authority. 172 A.D.2d 302, 568 N.Y.S.2d 385 (1st Dept.), aff'd79 N. Y.2d 777 (1991). In the instant matter, the cause of action accrued on November 19, 2008 (the da......
-
Burgess v. Long Island R.R. Authority
...York City, for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. 172 A.D.2d 302, 568 N.Y.S.2d 385. Plaintiff was injured on the tracks of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) after discharge from a LIRR train. He did not serve a summ......
- Wing Ming Properties (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. Mott Operating Corp.
-
In The matter of LUIS MEDINA v. Metro. Transp. Auth., INDEX NO. 100128/2011
...a subsidiary corporation of the authority. See Andersen v Long Island R.R. Authority, 59 N.Y.2d 657; See also Burgess v Long Island R.R. Authority, 172 A.D.2d 302 (1991); Public Authorities Law§§ 1276 (1), (2), and (6). Therefore, petitioner's motion for leave to serve a late notice of clai......