Tavarez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tavarez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

264 A.D.2d 338, 693 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8657

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

DecidedAugust 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 338 (Tavarez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Tavarez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 264 A.D.2d 338, 693 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about April 22, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to deem his late notice of claim timely filed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied petitioner’s application, since petitioner’s lengthy delay in serving his notice of claim was not solely attributable to his infancy and has prejudiced respondent’s ability to investigate the claim (see, Leonetti v Das, 256 AD2d 128). Although petitioner urges that respondent had timely actual knowledge of the facts constituting the medical malpractice claim and, accordingly, will suffer no prejudice if his late notice of claim is deemed timely, no medical records have been submitted by petitioner in support of that contention (see, supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about April 22, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to deem his late notice of claim timely filed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied petitioner’s application, since petitioner’s lengthy delay in serving his notice of claim was not solely attributable to his infancy and has prejudiced respondent’s ability to investigate the claim (see, Leonetti v Das, 256 AD2d 128). Although petitioner urges that respondent had timely actual knowledge of the facts constituting the medical malpractice claim and, accordingly, will suffer no prejudice if his late notice of claim is deemed timely, no medical records have been submitted by petitioner in support of that contention (see, supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 338, 693 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tavarez-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack