From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1996
232 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 7, 1996.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated August 2, 1995, which, upon an order granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), dismissed the complaint.

Before: Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Joseph Kinsella, a police officer, was injured on July 5, 1990, while on duty on the defendant's premises. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services on November 2, 1994. Since the action was commenced more than three years after the accrual of the action, it is barred by the Statute of Limitations ( see, CPLR 214).

We reject the plaintiffs' argument that the action was revived by the provisions of General Municipal Law § 205-e (2). The revival provisions of General Municipal Law § 205-e (2) only apply to actions which accrued between January 1, 1987, and its effective date of July 12, 1989. Since the plaintiffs' action accrued after the July 12, 1989, effective date of General Municipal Law § 205-e, the revival provisions do not apply ( see, Huebner v New York City Tr. Auth., 226 AD2d 678; McNulty v New York City Tr. Auth., 166 Mise 2d 219).


Summaries of

Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1996
232 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Kinsella v. Astroland Kiddie Park

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH KINSELLA et al., Appellants, v. ASTROLAND KIDDIE PARK, INC.…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 139

Citing Cases

Schiavone v. City of New York

The Supreme Court erred in applying General Municipal Law § 205-e (2) so as to find that this action was…