Koenigsberg v. Tannous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 734 (Koenigsberg v. Tannous) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 734, 639 N.Y.2d 947, 639 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koenigsberg-v-tannous-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack