Corcia v. Rothberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corcia v. Rothberg

279 A.D.2d 496, 718 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 345

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 496 (Corcia v. Rothberg) 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

Corcia v. Rothberg, 279 A.D.2d 496, 718 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated February 15, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action sounding in medical malpractice to the extent it was based on treatment rendered before March 28, 1996, on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

[497]*497Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the issue of whether the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff on March 28, 1996, constituted part of a continuous course of treatment could not be resolved on the record. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action sounding in medical malpractice to the extent it was based on treatment before March 28, 1996, was properly denied (see, Bidetti v Salter, 108 AD2d 890; see also, Neureuther v Calabrese, 195 AD2d 1035; Siegel v Wank, 183 AD2d 158). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated February 15, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action sounding in medical malpractice to the extent it was based on treatment rendered before March 28, 1996, on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

[497]*497Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the issue of whether the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff on March 28, 1996, constituted part of a continuous course of treatment could not be resolved on the record. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action sounding in medical malpractice to the extent it was based on treatment before March 28, 1996, was properly denied (see, Bidetti v Salter, 108 AD2d 890; see also, Neureuther v Calabrese, 195 AD2d 1035; Siegel v Wank, 183 AD2d 158). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 496, 718 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corcia-v-rothberg-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack