You are here: / / NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT...
, ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s notice of claim in this medical malpractice action was timely served as a matter of law under the continuous treatment doctrine. Two justices, in a concurring decision, agreed that the action should not have been dismissed, but argued there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied:

On January 25, 2006, plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant HHC. At the 50-h hearing in June 2006, plaintiff testified that while her last actual medical treatment at Lincoln Hospital occurred on October 19, 2005, when hospital personnel removed the sutures from her leg, she received a follow-up appointment to return to Lincoln Hospital on October 24, 2005. Plaintiff stated that she arrived at Lincoln Hospital for treatment on that date, but was informed that the staff could not locate her medical records and that she should return to the Hospital in one week, on October 31, 2005. Plaintiff testified that she did, in fact, return on October 31, only to have the staff inform her that they did not accept her insurance and that she should seek treatment elsewhere.

… [P]laintiff argued, her last treatment date was October 31, 2005 and thus, she had timely served her notice of claim on January 25, 2006. Hill v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00914, 1st Dept 2-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)

You might also like
Voluntary Participation in Fight Precludes Suit Alleging Inadequate Building Security
THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE WHICH CONTEMPLATED ONLY OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES FOR A BREACH; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS TO, SUA SPONTE, AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).
THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S NON-LEGAL MAIL DID NOT REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A MISTRIAL; THE PROSECUTOR’S DEMONSTRATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON (A KNIFE) DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL; AND THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE JURY NOTE REQUESTING THE EXAMINATION OF THE KNIFE WAS NOT AN O’RAMA VIOLATION AND DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE DOCTRINE OF ABATEMENT AB INITIO REMAINS VALID; WHERE A DEFENDANT DIES BEFORE THE CONVICTION BECOMES FINAL THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS VACATION OF THE CONVICTION AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IS REQUIRED; HERE BOTH DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND DIED BEFORE SENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close
ON A COLD DAY DEFENDANTS HOSED DOWN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE PURPORTED ORAL ASSIGNMENT OF A SUBLEASE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR VIOLATED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE CRITERIA FOR AN ASSIGNMENT “BY OPERATION OF LAW” WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPARTMENT). ​

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’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING... THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR NYC PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE...