Tulis v. Nyack Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tulis v. Nyack Hospital

271 A.D.2d 684, 706 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4543

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated May 20, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Nyack Hospital to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondent.

A prior medical malpractice action had been timely commenced by Frederick Drobin against the defendants. That action was subsequently dismissed on the ground that he lacked the capacity to sue as his causes of action vested in the bankruptcy trustee. Within six months after the prior action was dismissed, the plaintiff, Mark Tulis, commenced this action in a representative capacity on behalf of Drobin’s bankruptcy estate. We agree with the plaintiff that the six-month extension embodied in CPLR 205 (a) applies and, therefore, this action was erroneously dismissed as time-barred (see, Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 252; George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 179; Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated May 20, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Nyack Hospital to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondent.

A prior medical malpractice action had been timely commenced by Frederick Drobin against the defendants. That action was subsequently dismissed on the ground that he lacked the capacity to sue as his causes of action vested in the bankruptcy trustee. Within six months after the prior action was dismissed, the plaintiff, Mark Tulis, commenced this action in a representative capacity on behalf of Drobin’s bankruptcy estate. We agree with the plaintiff that the six-month extension embodied in CPLR 205 (a) applies and, therefore, this action was erroneously dismissed as time-barred (see, Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 252; George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 179; Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Tulis v. Nyack Hospital, 271 A.D.2d 684, 706 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

271 A.D.2d 684 (Tulis v. Nyack Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related