Moschetti v. Saxe

199 A.D.2d 79, 605 N.Y.S.2d 47
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about October 5, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that this case, involving the alleged negligence of a doctor in failing to remove an IUD previously implanted, cannot be distinguished from Rodriguez v Manhattan Med. Group (77 NY2d 217), involving the alleged negligence of a doctor in failing to remove an IUD previously implanted by another doctor, and that the alleged negligence did not transform the IUD from a "fixation device” into a "foreign object” so as to make the delayed discovery rule of CPLR 214-a applicable (see also, Rockefeller v Moront, 81 NY2d 560). Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed as time-barred. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Moschetti v. Saxe, 199 A.D.2d 79, 605 N.Y.S.2d 47 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

199 A.D.2d 79 (Moschetti v. Saxe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LaBarbera v. New York Eye & Ear Infirmary
230 A.D.2d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)