Stanfield v. Nohejl

182 A.D.2d 1138, 586 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7055
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant Vaddadi’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based upon their failure to comply with General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. On this record, it is uncontroverted that, at the time of the surgical procedure alleged in the complaint, defendant was a resident physician at the Erie County Medical Center and as such was entitled to the protection of General Municipal Law § 50-d. Inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e and failed to commence this action within the 1 year and 90 day limitations period provided for in General Municipal Law § 50-i, their complaint against [1139]*1139defendant must be dismissed (see, Mort v Andersen, 181 AD2d 1080). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Stanfield v. Nohejl, 182 A.D.2d 1138, 586 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

182 A.D.2d 1138 (Stanfield v. Nohejl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GOODWIN, ROBETTE v. PRETORIUS, M.D., RICHARD
105 A.D.3d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)