{ "id": 2822481, "name": "Elise NORIEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Noriega v. City of Albuquerque", "decision_date": "1974-05-15", "docket_number": "No. 1336", "first_page": "294", "last_page": "295", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "86 N.M. 294" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "523 P.2d 29" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "81 N.M. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359330 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 P. 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1918, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N.M. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8512711 ], "year": 1918, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/24/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 766", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359377 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0766-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 P. 1043", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1910, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.M. 652", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 206082 ], "year": 1910, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/15/0652-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 N.M. 793", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584767 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/56/0793-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 P.2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 2776009 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/63/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 N.M. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8842179 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/57/0467-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 316, "char_count": 4705, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4629889120858237e-07, "percentile": 0.805721105747864 }, "sha256": "d4040e62eb13b395874605151e168f3a269dd3d76de002ae5bab69f9290a56a0", "simhash": "1:1164796395e7f85c", "word_count": 770 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:27.328252+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SUTIN and LOPEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Elise NORIEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff sought damages from the City of Albuquerque alleging that the City\u2019s negligence was the cause of injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on January 11, 1971. The complaint was filed June 30, 1972. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the basis that suit was not commenced within one year after the date of injury. Section 23-1-23, N.M.S.A. 1953; Seiler v. City of Albuquerque, 57 N.M. 467, 260 P.2d 375 (1953). Appealing, plaintiff contends her suit was timely under the provisions of \u00a7 23-1-10, N.M.S.A. 1953.\nSection 23-1-23, supra, provides a one year limitation for negligence suits against municipalities. Plaintiff asserts this is a special statute which applies only to the time period for such a suit; that this special time period provision did not affect the applicability of a general statute extending the time for filing an action. The general statute, asserted to be applicable, is \u00a7 23-1-10, supra.\nSection 23-1-10, supra, states: \u201cThe times limited for the bringing of actions by the preceding provisions of this chapter shall, in favor of minors and persons insane or under any legal disability, be extended so that they shall have one [1] year from and after the termination of such disability within which to commence said actions.\u201d The above quotation is the language used in \u00a7 3353, N.M.S.A. Code (1915). This language varies from the wording as originally enacted by Laws 1880, ch. 5, \u00a7 10. This variance is immaterial in this case. Whether the original enactment or the Codification of 1915 is considered, \u00a7 23-1-10, supra, is concerned with extending the time period for commencing an action where a person is under a legal disability.\nPlaintiff filed two affidavits which we assume raise a factual question concerning a legal disability on plaintiffs part from January 11, 1971, to July 9, 1971. Plaintiff\u2019s contention is that the one year period provided by \u00a7 23-1-23, supra, did not begin to run until July 9, 1971. On this basis, she asserts her complaint was timely filed. The correctness of this view depends on whether \u00a7 23-1-10, supra, is applicable.\nPlaintiff\u2019s contention overlooks another legislative provision. Section 23-1-17, N. M.S.A. 1953 states: \u201cNone of the provisions of this chapter shall apply to any action or suit which, by any particular statute of this state, is limited to be commenced within a different time.\u201d This provision was a part of the original legislative enactment. Laws 1880, ch. 5, \u00a7 16. This provision was a part of the Codification of 1915. Section 3359, N.M.S.A. Code (1915).\nUnder \u00a7 23-1-17, supra, the provisions of \u00a7 23-1-10, supra, do not apply to any action which, by a particular statute, is. limited to be commenced within a different time. Leavell v. Town of Texico, 63. N.M. 233, 316 P.2d 247 (1957); Natseway v. Jojola, 56 N.M. 793, 251 P.2d 274 (1952); Mann v. Gordon, 15 N.M. 652, 110 P. 1043 (1910); Perry v. Staver, 81 N.M. 766, 473 P.2d 380 (Ct.App.1970); see Musgrave v. McManus, 24 N.M. 227, 173 P. 196, LRA 1918F 348 (1918). Thus \u00a7 23-1-10, supra, does not apply to actions for negligence, against municipalities which must be commenced as provided by \u00a7 23-1-23, supra.\nPlaintiff asserts that \u201cpolicy considerations dictate that \u00a7 23-1-10 must be held applicable to \u00a7 23-1-23.\u201d The policy considerations involved, according to plaintiff, are that the law favors \u201cthe right of action, rather than the defense of limitation\u201d and that the \u201cexceptions for mental disabilities\u201d in \u00a7 23-1-10, supra, indicate a legislative policy to apply the exceptions in suits against municipalities.\nWe recognize that the law favors the right of action rather than limitation of the action. Slade v. Slade, 81 N.M. 462, 468 P.2d 627 (1970). However, the provisions of \u00a7 23-1-10, supra, cannot be applied to \u00a7 23-1-23, supra, because \u00a7 23 \u2014 1\u2014 17, supra, states those provisions are not to apply. Section 23-1-17, supra, is unambiguous; there is no room for construction. Thus, the effect of \u00a7 23-1-17, supra, is not to be avoided by construction. Plaintiff asks the Court to supply a legislative omission to avoid a harsh result. We have no authority to supply such an omission where the legislative act is unambiguous. Natseway v. Jojola, supra.\nThe order of dismissal is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSUTIN and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert L. Thompson, Charles G. Berry, Marchiondo & Berry, P.A., Alburquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Cornelius J. Finnen, Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "523 P.2d 29\nElise NORIEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 1336.\nCourt of Ape\u00e1is of New Mexico.\nMay 15, 1974.\nCertiorari Denied June 6, 1974.\nRobert L. Thompson, Charles G. Berry, Marchiondo & Berry, P.A., Alburquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nCornelius J. Finnen, Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0294-01", "first_page_order": 324, "last_page_order": 325 }