Jaffee v. New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaffee v. New York Hospital

202 A.D.2d 276, 608 N.Y.S.2d 658

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1992, insofar as it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss as time-barred any claims of malpractice occurring prior to May 28, 1981, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the complaint was served more than 10 years after the alleged misdiagnosis on May 25, 1980, as well as more than 10 years after the return visits in 1980, all claims relating to those visits were properly dismissed as time barred (CPLR 208), even if those visits constituted, as plaintiff contends, "distinct” acts of malpractice. In any event, the record [277]*277indicates that the 1980 return visits were for continuous treatment of the original diagnosis of H. influenza meningitis and septic arthritis; as the IAS Court noted, "[b]ased on Daniel J. v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 77 NY2d 630 (1991) the infant toll (CPLR 208) and the continuous treatment toll (CPLR 214-a) do not run consecutively”. Concur —Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1992, insofar as it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss as time-barred any claims of malpractice occurring prior to May 28, 1981, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the complaint was served more than 10 years after the alleged misdiagnosis on May 25, 1980, as well as more than 10 years after the return visits in 1980, all claims relating to those visits were properly dismissed as time barred (CPLR 208), even if those visits constituted, as plaintiff contends, "distinct” acts of malpractice. In any event, the record [277]*277indicates that the 1980 return visits were for continuous treatment of the original diagnosis of H. influenza meningitis and septic arthritis; as the IAS Court noted, "[b]ased on Daniel J. v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 77 NY2d 630 (1991) the infant toll (CPLR 208) and the continuous treatment toll (CPLR 214-a) do not run consecutively”. Concur —Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Jaffee v. New York Hospital, 202 A.D.2d 276, 608 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 276 (Jaffee v. New York Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related