You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...
,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice. The motions were dismissed on procedural grounds because they were filed and served a few days after the 60-day deadline imposed by the local court rules. The courts had been closed when the papers were supposed to be filed due to a storm. The 2nd Department went on to determine the merits. Plaintiff had experienced headaches over a period of years and had sought treatment for them. Eventually a benign brain tumor was discovered. In removing the tumor plaintiff was rendered legally blind. The malpractice action alleged a negligent failure to diagnose the tumor, and lack of informed consent. The court held that the continuing treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations even though the treatment was for headaches, not the tumor, because the presence of the tumor had not been diagnosed. The court went on to find that the informed consent cause of action was not viable because the alleged malpractice was a failure to diagnose, not the negligent performance of a surgical procedure:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to continuous treatment. As is well established, “the continuous treatment doctrine tolls the Statute of Limitations for a medical malpractice action when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” … . In addition, “[w]here the malpractice claim is based on an alleged failure to properly diagnose a condition, the continuous treatment doctrine may apply as long as the symptoms being treated indicate the presence of that condition” … . * * *

… [T]he informed consent claim lacks merit. As we have held, “[a] failure to diagnose cannot be the basis of a cause of action for lack of informed consent unless associated with a diagnostic procedure that involve[s] invasion or disruption of the integrity of the body'” … . Lewis v Rutkovsky, 2017 NY Slip Op 06342, First Dept 8-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER SIGNED, IT IS CLEAR THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY IT (FIRST DEPT)
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE SCAFFOLDING SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED BY SWING, A SUBCONTRATOR, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST SWING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SWING WAS NOT A CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, OR A CONTRACTOR’S OR OWNER’S STATUTORY AGENT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Malicious Prosecution Requires Something More than Merely Reporting an Alleged Incident to Authorities/Uncorroborated, Incredible, Allegations by Plaintiff Did Not Raise a Question of Fact
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT, UNDER THE COMMON LAW, UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER THE HOSE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO DELIVER OIL (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS “COMPRESSION OF THE DIAPHRAGM” (BY KNEELING, SITTING OR STANDING ON A PERSON) WHEN EFFECTING AN ARREST IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, THE WITNESS’S CLAIM HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE EVENTS WAS NOT SO DAMAGING TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE AS TO ALLOW THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT... WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES...