From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Asch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 1970
34 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

May 26, 1970


Order, entered, in this personal injury action, on October 4, 1968, granting leave to add plaintiff's wife as a party plaintiff herein and to serve an amended complaint asserting a cause of action for loss of consortium, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion denied. The accident giving rise to this action occurred on October 21, 1966. It was not until August 20, 1968 that the present motion was made. Accordingly, the wife's cause of action for loss of consortium is time barred against the city by virtue of section 50-i Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law which requires that an action against the city "shall be commenced within one year and ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based". Such a claim may not now be asserted in this action by virtue of Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co. ( 22 N.Y.2d 498, 507-508) wherein it was specifically stated that: — "Where there is a cause of action * * * pending, the wife's consortium action, if not time-barred, should be joined with her husband's claim". (Emphasis added.)

Concur — Capozzoli, J.P., McGivern, Nunez, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.


Summaries of

Asch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 1970
34 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Asch v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MOSES ASCH, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, et al., Defendant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 26, 1970

Citations

34 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Murray v. City of New York

The second cause of action, by the plaintiff wife, for loss of corsortium, is time barred. No notice of claim…

Neggy Travel Serv. v. Sabena Belgian World

In effect, however, the motion sought to add a new party plaintiff. As such, it was not tenable under CPLR…