Moschetti v. Saxe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moschetti v. Saxe

199 A.D.2d 79, 605 N.Y.S.2d 47

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 79 (Moschetti v. Saxe) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 79, 605 N.Y.S.2d 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moschetti-v-saxe-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack