Manko v. Mannor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manko v. Mannor

55 A.D.3d 471, 865 N.Y.S.2d 549

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 471 (Manko v. Mannor) 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

Manko v. Mannor, 55 A.D.3d 471, 865 N.Y.S.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 22, 2007, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and dismissed as moot plaintiffs cross motions for, inter alia, further discovery and a stay of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since the alleged malpractice occurred in 2002 and the action was not commenced until September 2006, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (see CFLR 214-a).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that the relation back and continuous treatment doctrines preclude dismissal of the complaint, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 22, 2007, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and dismissed as moot plaintiffs cross motions for, inter alia, further discovery and a stay of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since the alleged malpractice occurred in 2002 and the action was not commenced until September 2006, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (see CFLR 214-a).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that the relation back and continuous treatment doctrines preclude dismissal of the complaint, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 471, 865 N.Y.S.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manko-v-mannor-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack