Koenigsberg v. Tannous

225 A.D.2d 734, 639 N.Y.2d 947, 639 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly determined that there was an issue of fact regarding whether the visits of the plaintiff’s decedent to the offices of the appellants between October 19, 1983, and January 25, 1990, were for "routine examinations”, such that the Statute of Limitations was not tolled, or whether they were for "continuous treatment” for "the same condition which gave rise to the claim of malpractice”, sufficient to toll the Statute of Limitations (McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399; see, Bartolo v Monaco, 202 AD2d 535; Yelin v American Dental Ctr., 184 AD2d 693, 695; Patterson v Minehan, 180 AD2d 241; [735]*735see also, Ganess v City of New York, 85 NY2d 733, 736). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Koenigsberg v. Tannous, 225 A.D.2d 734, 639 N.Y.2d 947, 639 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 734 (Koenigsberg v. Tannous) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pietromonaco v. Schwartzman
259 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Chulla v. DiStefano
242 A.D.2d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)