Azzu v. Reardon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Azzu v. Reardon

297 A.D.2d 554, 747 N.Y.2d 152, 747 N.Y.S.2d 152, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8456

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 554 (Azzu v. Reardon) 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

Azzu v. Reardon, 297 A.D.2d 554, 747 N.Y.2d 152, 747 N.Y.S.2d 152, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that defendants were not estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense. Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden to demonstrate that defendants made misrepresentations causing her to forebear from bringing suit (see Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 449). The record, in fact, demonstrates that plaintiff was advised by defendants that skin had grown over the sutures put in place during plaintiffs initial surgery and that additional surgery would be required if the sutures were to be removed. Moreover, that the sutures could not be removed without another operation was confirmed to plaintiff by a second board certified plastic surgeon consulted by plaintiff prior to the expiration of the applicable statutory period. Plaintiff, far from being deprived of information necessary to the claims she would make, had sufficient knowledge of the facts and circumstances pertinent thereto to enable her to bring such claims in timely fashion (see Fuchs v New York Blood Ctr., 275 AD2d 240, Iv denied 95 NY2d 769). Concur — Wallach, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

The motion court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that defendants were not estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense. Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden to demonstrate that defendants made misrepresentations causing her to forebear from bringing suit (see Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 449). The record, in fact, demonstrates that plaintiff was advised by defendants that skin had grown over the sutures put in place during plaintiffs initial surgery and that additional surgery would be required if the sutures were to be removed. Moreover, that the sutures could not be removed without another operation was confirmed to plaintiff by a second board certified plastic surgeon consulted by plaintiff prior to the expiration of the applicable statutory period. Plaintiff, far from being deprived of information necessary to the claims she would make, had sufficient knowledge of the facts and circumstances pertinent thereto to enable her to bring such claims in timely fashion (see Fuchs v New York Blood Ctr., 275 AD2d 240, Iv denied 95 NY2d 769). Concur — Wallach, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 554, 747 N.Y.2d 152, 747 N.Y.S.2d 152, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azzu-v-reardon-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack