De La Cruz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

13 A.D.3d 130, 786 N.Y.S.2d 52, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15027
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 130 (De La Cruz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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
De La Cruz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 13 A.D.3d 130, 786 N.Y.S.2d 52, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about August 5, 2004, which, in an action for medical malpractice involving prenatal, labor and delivery services rendered by defendant hospital to plaintiff infant’s mother, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to deem her notice of claim timely served, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff should not be penalized for her mother’s six-year delay in seeking legal counsel and the ensuing four-year delay of her attorney in seeking what is, in effect, leave to serve a late notice of claim, where defendant has been in possession of plaintiffs medical records since the time of the alleged acts of malpractice, and does not show how it has been prejudiced by these delays (see Matter of McMillan v City of New York, 279 AD2d 280 [2001]). We note that plaintiffs attorney was retained in June 2000, some six years after plaintiffs birth; plaintiffs attorney served a late notice of claim without court leave in July [131]*1312000; a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing was conducted in December 2000; the instant action was commenced in March 2002; defendant answered in April 2002; a note of issue was filed in December 2003; disclosure was conducted after the filing of the note of issue; and the instant motion was made in June 2004, just prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Wally G. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Metropolitan Hospital)
120 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Miranda v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
82 A.D.3d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Talavera v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
48 A.D.3d 276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bayo v. Burnside Mews Associates
45 A.D.3d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Pearson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
43 A.D.3d 92 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 130, 786 N.Y.S.2d 52, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-la-cruz-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2004.