Schatten v. Robbins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schatten v. Robbins

295 A.D.2d 335, 742 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5747

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 335 (Schatten v. Robbins) 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

Schatten v. Robbins, 295 A.D.2d 335, 742 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bar-one, J.), entered November 5, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant Elliot Robbins for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Dr. Elliot Robbins conducted a mammographic examination of the plaintiff in March 1997. The Supreme Court properly determined that this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, which was not commenced until January 2000, was time-barred insofar as asserted [336]*336against Robbins (see CPLR 214-a). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that her subsequent visit to Robbins in December 1997 was part of a continuous course of treatment, as opposed to a discrete intermittent diagnostic service (see McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399; Davis v City of New York, 38 NY2d 257; Elkin v Goodman, 285 AD2d 484; see also Robertson v Bozza & Karafiol, 242 AD2d 613; Monello v Sottile, Megna, 281 AD2d 463). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against Robbins.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bar-one, J.), entered November 5, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant Elliot Robbins for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Dr. Elliot Robbins conducted a mammographic examination of the plaintiff in March 1997. The Supreme Court properly determined that this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, which was not commenced until January 2000, was time-barred insofar as asserted [336]*336against Robbins (see CPLR 214-a). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that her subsequent visit to Robbins in December 1997 was part of a continuous course of treatment, as opposed to a discrete intermittent diagnostic service (see McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399; Davis v City of New York, 38 NY2d 257; Elkin v Goodman, 285 AD2d 484; see also Robertson v Bozza & Karafiol, 242 AD2d 613; Monello v Sottile, Megna, 281 AD2d 463). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against Robbins.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 335, 742 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schatten-v-robbins-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack