Hardie v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hardie v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

278 A.D.2d 453, 719 N.Y.S.2d 256, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13899

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 453 (Hardie 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

Hardie v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 278 A.D.2d 453, 719 N.Y.S.2d 256, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 17, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely file a notice of claim.

[454]*454Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when an intravenous needle was negligently administered to her left arm. As the plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim within 90 days of the accrual of her cause of action, and never sought leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7401 [2]), her complaint would be timely only if the continuous treatment doctrine applied (see, Allende v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 NY2d 333). However, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply, because the plaintiff did not have “continuing trust and confidence” (Coyne v Bersani, 61 NY2d 939, 940) in the doctors at the defendant’s hospital, or “contemplare] any continuity of relationship” (Allende v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra, at 339) with those doctors. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 17, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely file a notice of claim.

[454]*454Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when an intravenous needle was negligently administered to her left arm. As the plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim within 90 days of the accrual of her cause of action, and never sought leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7401 [2]), her complaint would be timely only if the continuous treatment doctrine applied (see, Allende v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 NY2d 333). However, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply, because the plaintiff did not have “continuing trust and confidence” (Coyne v Bersani, 61 NY2d 939, 940) in the doctors at the defendant’s hospital, or “contemplare] any continuity of relationship” (Allende v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra, at 339) with those doctors. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 453, 719 N.Y.S.2d 256, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardie-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack