Adams v. Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Frankel

242 A.D.2d 595, 662 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9054

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 22, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 595 (Adams v. Frankel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Frankel, 242 A.D.2d 595, 662 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Martin J. Frankel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated May 24, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in concluding that the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the 2½-year Statute of Limitations for claims sounding in medical malpractice (see, CPLR 214-a). Here, the “continuing trust and confidence” which underlies the doctrine (Richardson v Orentreich, 64 NY2d 896, 898) did not end when the appellant referred the plaintiff to a radiologist in order to have a mammography performed for diagnostic purposes. The radiologist’s findings were disclosed only to the appellant, who reviewed and evaluated the findings and informed the plaintiff of the results of the mammography approximately one month after the test. Under these circumstances, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff remained under the appellant’s care and treatment while she was awaiting the mammography results (see, Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 238 AD2d 174; Bartolo v Monaco, 202 AD2d 535; Miller v Rivard, 180 AD2d 331; cf., Robertson v Bozza & Karafiol, 242 AD2d 613 [decided herewith]). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Martin J. Frankel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated May 24, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in concluding that the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the 2½-year Statute of Limitations for claims sounding in medical malpractice (see, CPLR 214-a). Here, the “continuing trust and confidence” which underlies the doctrine (Richardson v Orentreich, 64 NY2d 896, 898) did not end when the appellant referred the plaintiff to a radiologist in order to have a mammography performed for diagnostic purposes. The radiologist’s findings were disclosed only to the appellant, who reviewed and evaluated the findings and informed the plaintiff of the results of the mammography approximately one month after the test. Under these circumstances, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff remained under the appellant’s care and treatment while she was awaiting the mammography results (see, Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 238 AD2d 174; Bartolo v Monaco, 202 AD2d 535; Miller v Rivard, 180 AD2d 331; cf., Robertson v Bozza & Karafiol, 242 AD2d 613 [decided herewith]). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 595, 662 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-frankel-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack