Ortiz v. New York Medical Group, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. New York Medical Group, P.C.

30 A.D.3d 215, 817 N.Y.S.2d 244

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

DecidedJune 13, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 215 (Ortiz v. New York Medical Group, P.C.) 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

Ortiz v. New York Medical Group, P.C., 30 A.D.3d 215, 817 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2005, which granted the motions of defendant Doctors Kapit and Mirrer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The continuous treatment doctrine is not applicable to toll [216]*216the running of the statutory period with respect to the claims against respondent doctors. The record establishes that the treatment relied upon by plaintiff to toll the statutory period was not for the particular condition giving rise to the instant malpractice claims (see Prinz-Schwartz v Levitan, 17 AD3d 175, 178 [2005]; Vazquez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 279 AD2d 368 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2005, which granted the motions of defendant Doctors Kapit and Mirrer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The continuous treatment doctrine is not applicable to toll [216]*216the running of the statutory period with respect to the claims against respondent doctors. The record establishes that the treatment relied upon by plaintiff to toll the statutory period was not for the particular condition giving rise to the instant malpractice claims (see Prinz-Schwartz v Levitan, 17 AD3d 175, 178 [2005]; Vazquez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 279 AD2d 368 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 215, 817 N.Y.S.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-new-york-medical-group-pc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack