You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE...
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the continuous treatment applied such that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether [defendant’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, including rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the [the rehabilitation center’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, which included rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management treatment through January 2015, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . Wright v Southampton Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06170, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

You might also like
Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving the Property When the Purchase Is Made, Is Bound By the Outcome of the Lawsuit
THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE DEFENDANT, WHO PLED GUILTY TO BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, ATTEMPTED TO CHALLENGE HIS CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER, PRONOUNCED AT SENTENCING, IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING; THE SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION WAS DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED ON DIRECT APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal

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

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN ON REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED... THE MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE...