Manko v. Mannor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manko v. Mannor

68 A.D.3d 497, 889 N.Y.2d 448

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 497 (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, 68 A.D.3d 497, 889 N.Y.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The alleged medical malpractice occurred in 2002 and the action was not commenced until July 2007, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a). Additionally, the complaint failed to state a cause of action against defendant Strauss (see DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420 [2003]), and the claims against Mannor, Lubin and Tikotsky are barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of our 2008 ruling (Manko v Mannor, 55 AD3d 471 [2008], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]) affirming the dismissal of a similarly belated earlier action against those defendants.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, McGuire, DeGrasse And Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The alleged medical malpractice occurred in 2002 and the action was not commenced until July 2007, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a). Additionally, the complaint failed to state a cause of action against defendant Strauss (see DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420 [2003]), and the claims against Mannor, Lubin and Tikotsky are barred by the doctrine of res judicata in light of our 2008 ruling (Manko v Mannor, 55 AD3d 471 [2008], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]) affirming the dismissal of a similarly belated earlier action against those defendants.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, McGuire, DeGrasse And Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 497, 889 N.Y.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manko-v-mannor-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack