Armstrong v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Armstrong v. City of New York

39 Misc. 2d 445, 240 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2036

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 Misc. 2d 445 (Armstrong v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. City of New York, 39 Misc. 2d 445, 240 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2036 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Joseph A. Sarafite, J.

Plaintiff moves to strike the defense of failure ‘ ‘ to comply with the provisions of section 50E of the General Municipal Law ”. This is a malpractice action against the city. The deceased infant was initially taken to the City Hospital on April 23, 1962 for treatment of smoke poisoning, and she was released therefrom on April 30, 1962. The infant remained ill and was taken back to the hospital on May 6, 1962. She was removed to another hospital on the same day and died on May 8.

In a malpractice action against the City of New York, a notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues (General Municipal Law, § 50-e). The Court of Appeals has recently held that ‘ ‘ when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint, the ‘ accrual7 [446]*446comes only at the end of the treatment ” (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N Y 2d 151, 155). There is no requirement that the injured party be confined to the hospital during the entire period complained of in order for there to be “ continuous treatment ”. Therefore, the notice of claim served on August 3, 1962 was timely served, and this motion is granted.

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

Joseph A. Sarafite, J.

Plaintiff moves to strike the defense of failure ‘ ‘ to comply with the provisions of section 50E of the General Municipal Law ”. This is a malpractice action against the city. The deceased infant was initially taken to the City Hospital on April 23, 1962 for treatment of smoke poisoning, and she was released therefrom on April 30, 1962. The infant remained ill and was taken back to the hospital on May 6, 1962. She was removed to another hospital on the same day and died on May 8.

In a malpractice action against the City of New York, a notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues (General Municipal Law, § 50-e). The Court of Appeals has recently held that ‘ ‘ when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint, the ‘ accrual7 [446]*446comes only at the end of the treatment ” (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N Y 2d 151, 155). There is no requirement that the injured party be confined to the hospital during the entire period complained of in order for there to be “ continuous treatment ”. Therefore, the notice of claim served on August 3, 1962 was timely served, and this motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Misc. 2d 445, 240 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack