Thonnesen v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thonnesen v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Ass'n

53 A.D.2d 642, 385 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13358

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

DecidedJune 14, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 642 (Thonnesen v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Ass'n) 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

Thonnesen v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Ass'n, 53 A.D.2d 642, 385 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages for medical malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 5, 1976, which granted defendant Reilly’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action had not been timely commenced as against him. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. On this record it is clear that there is a triable question of fact as to whether respondent engaged in a continuous course of. treatment. The facts in this case differ sharply from those in Davis v City of New York (47 AD2d 529, affd 38 NY2d 257) upon which respondent relies. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur; Cohalan, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages for medical malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 5, 1976, which granted defendant Reilly’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action had not been timely commenced as against him. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. On this record it is clear that there is a triable question of fact as to whether respondent engaged in a continuous course of. treatment. The facts in this case differ sharply from those in Davis v City of New York (47 AD2d 529, affd 38 NY2d 257) upon which respondent relies. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur; Cohalan, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 642, 385 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thonnesen-v-phelps-memorial-hospital-assn-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack