Harvey v. Ehtisham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harvey v. Ehtisham

116 A.D.2d 699, 498 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51555

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1986·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Syed Ehtisham appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 9, 1984, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion for summary judgment granted and action dismissed as against defendant Ehtisham.

In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, a party is required to lay bare its proof. In the instant case, the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant doctor saw or attended plaintiff Henry Harvey at any time later than August of 1979. The 21A-year Statute of Limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions (CPLR 214-a) ran in this case, therefore, in February of 1982, and the instant action, which plaintiffs commenced in July of 1982, five months after the statute expired, was untimely. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Syed Ehtisham appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 9, 1984, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion for summary judgment granted and action dismissed as against defendant Ehtisham.

In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, a party is required to lay bare its proof. In the instant case, the record was devoid of any evidence that the defendant doctor saw or attended plaintiff Henry Harvey at any time later than August of 1979. The 21A-year Statute of Limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions (CPLR 214-a) ran in this case, therefore, in February of 1982, and the instant action, which plaintiffs commenced in July of 1982, five months after the statute expired, was untimely. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Harvey v. Ehtisham, 116 A.D.2d 699, 498 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

116 A.D.2d 699 (Harvey v. Ehtisham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related