Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

49 A.D.3d 454, 854 N.Y.2d 69

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[455] Defendant’s possession of plaintiffs medical records since the time of the alleged malpractice at birth in 1995 gave it actual notice of the alleged cause of the infant’s cerebral palsy from the inception. Given this knowledge of the essential facts and resultant lack of substantial prejudice, the delay in moving to file a notice of claim nunc pro tunc is not fatal (see Talavera ex rel. Rios v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 48 AD3d 276 [2008]; Caminero v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Bronx Mun. Hosp. Ctr.], 21 AD3d 330 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[455] Defendant’s possession of plaintiffs medical records since the time of the alleged malpractice at birth in 1995 gave it actual notice of the alleged cause of the infant’s cerebral palsy from the inception. Given this knowledge of the essential facts and resultant lack of substantial prejudice, the delay in moving to file a notice of claim nunc pro tunc is not fatal (see Talavera ex rel. Rios v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 48 AD3d 276 [2008]; Caminero v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Bronx Mun. Hosp. Ctr.], 21 AD3d 330 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 49 A.D.3d 454, 854 N.Y.2d 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 454 (Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related