Brown v. Huntington Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Huntington Medical Group

238 A.D.2d 367, 657 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3817

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

DecidedApril 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 367 (Brown v. Huntington Medical Group) 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

Brown v. Huntington Medical Group, 238 A.D.2d 367, 657 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendants Huntington Medical Group, Robert Allen Feld, and Timothy E. Sass appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated January 4, 1996, as denied their motions to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that this action was timely commenced since it was brought within six months of the dismissal of an earlier action which had been improperly commenced because the plaintiff had not yet been granted letters testamentary (see, CPLR 205 [a]; Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242; Vigliotti v Ricci, 229 AD2d 389; Brown v Zaino, 226 AD2d 492). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendants Huntington Medical Group, Robert Allen Feld, and Timothy E. Sass appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated January 4, 1996, as denied their motions to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that this action was timely commenced since it was brought within six months of the dismissal of an earlier action which had been improperly commenced because the plaintiff had not yet been granted letters testamentary (see, CPLR 205 [a]; Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242; Vigliotti v Ricci, 229 AD2d 389; Brown v Zaino, 226 AD2d 492). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 367, 657 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-huntington-medical-group-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack