Djeddah v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Djeddah v. Williams

103 A.D.3d 579, 959 N.Y.S.2d 443

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 579 (Djeddah v. Williams) 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

Djeddah v. Williams, 103 A.D.3d 579, 959 N.Y.S.2d 443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 24, 2011, which denied plaintiff Rachel Djeddah’s motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if plaintiff received treatment from defendant, any such treatment ceased in or around June 1994. The limitations periods for the claims plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint expired long ago (see CPLR 214-a [medical malpractice], 215 [3] [defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress]). The “relation back” doctrine does not avail plaintiff because her original pleading asserted only a loss of consortium claim (see 83 AD3d 590 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 203 [f|). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31711(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 24, 2011, which denied plaintiff Rachel Djeddah’s motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if plaintiff received treatment from defendant, any such treatment ceased in or around June 1994. The limitations periods for the claims plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint expired long ago (see CPLR 214-a [medical malpractice], 215 [3] [defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress]). The “relation back” doctrine does not avail plaintiff because her original pleading asserted only a loss of consortium claim (see 83 AD3d 590 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 203 [f|). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31711(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 579, 959 N.Y.S.2d 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/djeddah-v-williams-nyappdiv-2013.