From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Balsamo v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 30, 1995
211 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 30, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that fraud, misrepresentation, or deception induced him to refrain from timely commencing the action. Thus, the defendant Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority is not estopped from interposing the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the action (see, Montelione v Greenburg Edgemont Union Free School Dist., 175 A.D.2d 113).

While the transcript of the hearing that the defendant Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority served on the plaintiff's counsel erroneously referred to the hearing as one pursuant to section 50-h Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law, "such inadvertence does not expand the time in which to commence an action against defendant as set forth in the Public Authorities Law" (Simon v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 95 A.D.2d 902).

We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Balsamo v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 30, 1995
211 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Balsamo v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH J. BALSAMO, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN SUBURBAN BUS AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Jan 30, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 107

Citing Cases

Jones v. Regional Transit Service, Inc.

We reject plaintiff's contention that defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations…