Kanter v. Schlecker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanter v. Schlecker

102 A.D.2d 882, 477 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19106

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

DecidedJune 25, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 882 (Kanter v. Schlecker) 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

Kanter v. Schlecker, 102 A.D.2d 882, 477 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Herbert I. Weinreb appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated October 28,1983, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. H Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion for summary judgment granted on the ground that the action as against Dr. Weinreb is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. The action insofar as it is against Dr. Weinreb is severed. $ Under the circumstances presented, Dr. Weinreb, who attended plaintiff Irving Kanter during his doctor’s absence due to vacation, was not, as Special Term found, “united in interest” with said plaintiff’s doctor. Accordingly, the action as against Dr. Weinreb, which was commenced more than two and one-half years after the last date upon which he attended Mr. Kanter (CPLR 214-a), is time barred (see Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30; Grady v New York Med. Coll., 19 AD2d 426; see, also, Feigelson v Ryan, 108 Mise 2d 192, 198; cf. Impastato v Di Girolamo, 95 AD2d 845). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Herbert I. Weinreb appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated October 28,1983, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him. H Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion for summary judgment granted on the ground that the action as against Dr. Weinreb is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. The action insofar as it is against Dr. Weinreb is severed. $ Under the circumstances presented, Dr. Weinreb, who attended plaintiff Irving Kanter during his doctor’s absence due to vacation, was not, as Special Term found, “united in interest” with said plaintiff’s doctor. Accordingly, the action as against Dr. Weinreb, which was commenced more than two and one-half years after the last date upon which he attended Mr. Kanter (CPLR 214-a), is time barred (see Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30; Grady v New York Med. Coll., 19 AD2d 426; see, also, Feigelson v Ryan, 108 Mise 2d 192, 198; cf. Impastato v Di Girolamo, 95 AD2d 845). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 882, 477 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanter-v-schlecker-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack