Kramer v. Herrera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kramer v. Herrera

188 A.D.2d 1038, 592 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14894

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1038 (Kramer v. Herrera) 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

Kramer v. Herrera, 188 A.D.2d 1038, 592 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff’s

[1039]*1039complaint alleging medical malpractice was not time-barred on the ground that plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the six-month extension period granted by CPLR 205. Plaintiff’s prior action for false arrest and malicious prosecution was dismissed as time-barred pursuant to the one-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215 [3]). We affirmed that ruling (Kramer v Herrera, 176 AD2d 1241). Since the timely commencement of the prior action is a condition precedent to the invocation of CPLR 205 (a), plaintiff cannot obtain the benefit of the six-month extension (see, Markoff v South Nassau Community Hosp., 61 NY2d 283, 288). Without benefit of that extension, plaintiff’s action for medical malpractice is time-barred by the 2Vi-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 214-a. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff’s

[1039]*1039complaint alleging medical malpractice was not time-barred on the ground that plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the six-month extension period granted by CPLR 205. Plaintiff’s prior action for false arrest and malicious prosecution was dismissed as time-barred pursuant to the one-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 215 [3]). We affirmed that ruling (Kramer v Herrera, 176 AD2d 1241). Since the timely commencement of the prior action is a condition precedent to the invocation of CPLR 205 (a), plaintiff cannot obtain the benefit of the six-month extension (see, Markoff v South Nassau Community Hosp., 61 NY2d 283, 288). Without benefit of that extension, plaintiff’s action for medical malpractice is time-barred by the 2Vi-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 214-a. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 1038, 592 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-herrera-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack