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
PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).
COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGE’S DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate the Sale Were Excluded from the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA)—Doctrine of “De Facto Merger” Did Not Apply in Absence of “Continuity of Ownership”

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...