Altomare v. Schulman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altomare v. Schulman

236 A.D.2d 494, 654 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 494 (Altomare v. Schulman) 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

Altomare v. Schulman, 236 A.D.2d 494, 654 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 26, 1995, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Martin Schulman which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a continuing course of treatment so as to toll the medical malpractice Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a; Ganess v City of New York, 85 NY2d 733; Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 26, 1995, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Martin Schulman which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a continuing course of treatment so as to toll the medical malpractice Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a; Ganess v City of New York, 85 NY2d 733; Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 494, 654 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altomare-v-schulman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack