You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE...
, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly allowed petitioner (Townsend) to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Petitioner had been treated for a lacerated thumb. Petitioner did not learn a tendon had been torn until after the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim had passed. He hired an attorney shortly thereafter. The attorney requested petitioner’s medical records from HHC but had not received them by the time the statute of limitations was about to run out. At that point the attorney petitioned for leave to file a late notice of claim. Although HHC did not have timely actual knowledge of the nature of the malpractice claim, because the torn tendon was not mentioned in the HHC medical records, the petitioner’s excuse for not filing the notice of claim (HHC’s failure to provide the medical records) was deemed sufficient:

​

The actual knowledge requirement “contemplates actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim,’ not knowledge of a specific legal theory” … . Facts found in medical records that merely “suggest” the possibility of malpractice are insufficient, as a plaintiff must demonstrate a hospital’s actual knowledge of negligent acts or omissions which result in injury to a plaintiff … . Supreme Court correctly found that HHC did not acquire actual knowledge of Townson’s malpractice claim through the medical records.

The dissent concedes that Townson … did not learn of [his] torn tendon until March 19, 2015, after the 90-day period had expired. The dissent argues that Townson’s excuse may have been reasonable had he requested leave to file shortly after March 19, 2015, when he learned of the torn tendon. In the dissent’s view the delay in serving the notice of claim is not excusable.

We disagree. Townson’s claim of malpractice is premised upon a theory that the emergency room failed to evaluate whether internal, connective soft tissue damage resulted from the deep laceration. Townson’s counsel, at the time he was retained, which was immediately after Townson had learned of the torn tendon, promptly sent a request to HHC for the medical records to discern the viability of Townson’s malpractice claim, but HHC failed to respond on multiple occasions … . Matter of Townson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00607, First Dept 2-1-18

​

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S OWN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE CLEANED THE AREA WHERE HE STEPPED ON A NAIL PROVED DEFENDANT DID NOT NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE NAIL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
CITY AGENCY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REPORT SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS WAS SUBJECT TO THE INTRA-AGENCY EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE AGENCY DID NOT PRESENT PROOF THE PREPARER OF THE REPORT WAS RETAINED BY THE AGENCY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS MANDATED BY A 2017 AMENDMENT TO FOIL (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT INQUIRING ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.
BECAUSE THE NONPARTY WITNESS, WHO WAS PLAINTIFF’S ASSAILANT, HAD A COMMON NAME AND WAS HOMELESS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WITNESS’S DATE OF BIRTH AS AN AID IN LOCATING HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE WITNESS’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).
USING A NEW YORK VIRTUAL LAW OFFICE PROGRAM (VLOP) ONLY AS A MAILING ADDRESS AND AS AN AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN NEW YORK HAVE A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK, HOWEVER THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE VLOP ATTORNEY IS NOT A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.
PLAINTIFF STORE MANAGER FELL FROM A LADDER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE CEILING TILES DAMAGED BY A LEAK IN THE ROOF; PLAINTIFF SUED THE BUILDING OWNER; THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY... SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S...