Collins v. Ackerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Ackerman

253 A.D.2d 535, 676 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9225

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

DecidedAugust 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 535 (Collins v. Ackerman) 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

Collins v. Ackerman, 253 A.D.2d 535, 676 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered October 7, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the services rendered by the defendant fell within the continuous treatment doctrine (see, Ganess v City of New York, 85 NY2d 733, 736; Garcia-Alano v Guttman Breast Diagnostic Inst., 188 AD2d 262).

In light of the foregoing, the defendant’s remaining contention need not be addressed. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Friedmann, 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, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered October 7, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the services rendered by the defendant fell within the continuous treatment doctrine (see, Ganess v City of New York, 85 NY2d 733, 736; Garcia-Alano v Guttman Breast Diagnostic Inst., 188 AD2d 262).

In light of the foregoing, the defendant’s remaining contention need not be addressed. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 535, 676 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-ackerman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack