New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Alford v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 13, 1986

67 N.Y.2d 1019; 503 N.Y.S.2d 324; 494 N.E.2d 455; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18633

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Hymowitz v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Steenbuck v. Sklarow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Nacipucha v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 2008)
Perez v. Empire Bus Co. (New York Supreme Court 2006)
Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Jusino v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Mercado v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Hawkins v. New York City Transit Authority Police Department (Civil Court of the City of New York 1993)
Counihan v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1991)
Cabreaja v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), appeal by claimants Cronley, Wilhelm, Panzarino and Campbell dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that said claimants are not aggrieved by the modification at the Appellate Division (former CPLR 5601 [a] [iii]) and no appeal lies as of right by said claimants from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question. On the appeal by the remaining claimants-appellants, order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (115 AD2d 420). We add that claimants have not set forth any special circumstances warranting deviation from the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-h. There is nothing in the record to support claimants’ allegations that the scheduling of the required examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h was purposely delayed by respondents.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.