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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 2006·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

26 A.D.3d 167 (Pattavina v. DiLorenzo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related