Pattavina v. DiLorenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pattavina v. DiLorenzo

26 A.D.3d 167, 807 N.Y.S.2d 564

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 167 (Pattavina v. DiLorenzo) 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

Pattavina v. DiLorenzo, 26 A.D.3d 167, 807 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 22, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the conduct, based on allegations of injuries resulting from physical therapy, “ constitute [d] medical treatment or b[ore] a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment” (Bleiler v Bodnar, 65 NY2d 65, 72 [1985]; see also Levinson v Health S. Manhattan, 17 AD3d 247 [2005]), plaintiffs complaint sounded in malpractice and the action was properly dismissed as time-barred (CPLR 214-a). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 22, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the conduct, based on allegations of injuries resulting from physical therapy, “ constitute [d] medical treatment or b[ore] a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment” (Bleiler v Bodnar, 65 NY2d 65, 72 [1985]; see also Levinson v Health S. Manhattan, 17 AD3d 247 [2005]), plaintiffs complaint sounded in malpractice and the action was properly dismissed as time-barred (CPLR 214-a). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 167, 807 N.Y.S.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pattavina-v-dilorenzo-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack