TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Myers v. City of Plattsburgh

Jeanett M. Myers, as Administratrix of the Estate of George R. Myers v. City of Plattsburgh

Myers v. City of Plattsburgh, 13 A.D.2d 866 (1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 9, 1961
Citations
13 A.D.2d 866214 N.Y.S.2d 7731961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11068

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered in Clinton County, which, upon motion, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Statute of Limitations is a bar to the action, which was brought to recover damages for negligence occurring during the period November 15, 1938 to August 31, 1940, whereby plaintiff’s intestate contracted histoplasmosis through exposure to large amounts of pigeon excretion present in a structure in which he worked, the disease causing pain and suffering in his lifetime and his death on August 18, 1956. Inasmuch as plaintiff, in his lifetime, failed to commence an action to recover damages for his personal injury resulting from negligence, within three years after his cause of action accrued (Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 6), the causes of action sought to be prosecuted by his administratrix are barred, since a cause of action for personal injuries, once foreclosed by the statute, is not, upon death, revived in favor of the estate and the cause of action for wrongful death given by section 130 of the Decedent Estate Láw is barred if the personal injury cause of action was outlawed in decedent’s lifetime. (Kelliher v. New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 212 N. Y. 207 ; Johnson v. Stromberg-Carlson Tel. Mfg. Co., 250 App. Div. 352 , affd. 276 N. Y. 621 , cert, denied 305 U. S. 645 .) Appellant does not dispute the applicability of the cases cited but considers that Kelliher (which Johnson followed) was not correctly decided and that New York should follow the contrary rule which has been adopted in certain other jurisdictions. Appellant’s attorneys candidly recognize that if there is to be a new interpretation of section 130, it must be by the Court of Appeals. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1976: 11981: 11982: 11984: 21985: 11987: 11989: 11991: 119762026peak 1984 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Kelliher v. N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R., 212 N.Y. 207 (1914) 21
Johnson v. Stromberg-Carlson Tel. Mfg. Co., 12 N.E.2d 607 (N.Y. 1938) 11
Johnson v. Stromberg-Carlson Tel. Mfg. Co., 250 A.D. 352 (1937) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list