Beck v. Ausubel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beck v. Ausubel

266 A.D.2d 328, 698 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11529

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 328 (Beck v. Ausubel) 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

Beck v. Ausubel, 266 A.D.2d 328, 698 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated October 28, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he underwent a continuing course of treatment so as to toll the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a; Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 91 NY2d 291; Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255; Yachnin v Levine, 257 AD2d 571). Thus, the action is time-barred and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated October 28, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he underwent a continuing course of treatment so as to toll the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a; Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 91 NY2d 291; Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255; Yachnin v Levine, 257 AD2d 571). Thus, the action is time-barred and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 328, 698 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-ausubel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack