Lazich v. Westchester Jewish Community Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lazich v. Westchester Jewish Community Services

281 A.D.2d 600, 722 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3103

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 2001·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for professional malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated December 16, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was time-barred and denied as academic his cross motion, inter alia, to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the Statute of Limitations in this action to recover damages for professional malpractice accrued from the date of the plaintiffs last visit with one of the defendant’s professionals, more than three years before the claim was interposed (see, Richardson v Orentreich, 64 NY2d 896). Under the facts of this case, the continuous treatment doctrine is not applicable (see, Bender v Fischhurg, 272 AD2d 425).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for professional malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated December 16, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was time-barred and denied as academic his cross motion, inter alia, to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the Statute of Limitations in this action to recover damages for professional malpractice accrued from the date of the plaintiffs last visit with one of the defendant’s professionals, more than three years before the claim was interposed (see, Richardson v Orentreich, 64 NY2d 896). Under the facts of this case, the continuous treatment doctrine is not applicable (see, Bender v Fischhurg, 272 AD2d 425).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Lazich v. Westchester Jewish Community Services, 281 A.D.2d 600, 722 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 600 (Lazich v. Westchester Jewish Community Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related