Doe v. Hemophilia Center of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doe v. Hemophilia Center of Rochester

244 A.D.2d 853, 668 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12170

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 853 (Doe v. Hemophilia Center of Rochester) 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

Doe v. Hemophilia Center of Rochester, 244 A.D.2d 853, 668 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Cross appeal unanimously dismissed, and order [854]*854and judgment affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, as limited administratrix of her husband’s estate and individually, commenced this action based upon decedent’s death from AIDS as a result of contaminated blood products furnished by defendant in or about 1980 to treat decedent’s hemophilia and based upon plaintiff herself having thereafter been infected with the HIV virus by her husband. She alleges five causes of action for medical malpractice, negligence and fraud.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint. The allegations in the fraud causes of action are insufficient to meet the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (b). We conclude that the remaining causes of action are time-barred, whether construed as sounding in negligence (see, CPLR 214) or medical malpractice (see, CPLR 214-a). The continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable to the facts herein (see, Massie v Crawford, 78 NY2d 516, 519, rearg denied 79 NY2d 978; Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255; Patterson v Minehan, 180 AD2d 241, 242-243). Further, we reject plaintiffs contention that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies (see, Smith v Cutson, 188 AD2d 1034, lv denied 81 NY2d 707). Lastly, we dismiss the cross appeal because defendant is not an aggrieved party (see, CPLR 5511; Matter of Brown v Starkweather, 197 AD2d 840, 841, lv denied 82 NY2d 653). (Appeals from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Cross appeal unanimously dismissed, and order [854]*854and judgment affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, as limited administratrix of her husband’s estate and individually, commenced this action based upon decedent’s death from AIDS as a result of contaminated blood products furnished by defendant in or about 1980 to treat decedent’s hemophilia and based upon plaintiff herself having thereafter been infected with the HIV virus by her husband. She alleges five causes of action for medical malpractice, negligence and fraud.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint. The allegations in the fraud causes of action are insufficient to meet the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (b). We conclude that the remaining causes of action are time-barred, whether construed as sounding in negligence (see, CPLR 214) or medical malpractice (see, CPLR 214-a). The continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable to the facts herein (see, Massie v Crawford, 78 NY2d 516, 519, rearg denied 79 NY2d 978; Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255; Patterson v Minehan, 180 AD2d 241, 242-243). Further, we reject plaintiffs contention that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies (see, Smith v Cutson, 188 AD2d 1034, lv denied 81 NY2d 707). Lastly, we dismiss the cross appeal because defendant is not an aggrieved party (see, CPLR 5511; Matter of Brown v Starkweather, 197 AD2d 840, 841, lv denied 82 NY2d 653). (Appeals from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 853, 668 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-hemophilia-center-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack