Cane v. City of New York

Full title: DAVID CANE et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1994

209 A.D.2d 217 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

618 N.Y.S.2d 314

Opinion

November 10, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.).

The IAS Court correctly held no factual issue as to equitable estoppel is raised since MABSTOA was under no obligation to aid plaintiffs in prosecuting their claims and, rather than misleading plaintiffs, MABSTOA and New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA") provided several indications within the statutory period that NYCTA was the proper party defendant (Collins v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 192 A.D.2d 464; Nowinski v. City of New York, 189 A.D.2d 674; Reis v Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 161 A.D.2d 288, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 707; Luka v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 323, affd 63 N.Y.2d 667).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.