Askew v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 25 June 1979 |
| Citation | 70 A.D.2d 942,417 N.Y.S.2d 783 |
| Parties | Ada ASKEW, Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nathan Dambroff, New York City (David Weicholz and Arnold Davis, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Bernard Burstein and L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Before RABIN, J. P., and GULOTTA, MARTUSCELLO and MANGANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 24, 1978, which granted the plaintiff's motion for reargument and upon reargument vacated the order which had denied the plaintiff's motion to, Inter alia, hold that a notice of claim was timely served and granted said motion to the extent of holding that the notice of claim was timely served.
Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom everything following the words "this motion for reargument is granted" and substituting therefor the following: "and upon reargument the original determination is adhered to". As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff bases her claim against defendant on allegedly negligent medical treatment she received in its clinic on February 28, 1972. The defendant pleaded the affirmative defense that service of plaintiff's notice of claim on July 18, 1972 was untimely under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law as not being within 90 days after her claim arose.
Thereafter plaintiff moved to strike this affirmative defense or, in the alternative, for a declaration that her notice of claim was timely served. This motion was denied by Mr. Justice HELLER, who subsequently retired from the bench. Later, plaintiff moved, Inter alia, for reargument and that motion was heard by Mr. Justice MORTON who granted reargument and upon reargument vacated the prior order and granted the original motion to the extent of holding that the notice of claim was timely served.
The plaintiff's notice of claim was not timely served since a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues at the time the act occurs, as a general rule, and not at the time of its discovery. True, the finding of a foreign object inside a person, or the receiving of continuous treatment from a hospital or its physicians may afford the basis for a later accrual date (see Matter of Smalls v. New York City Health & Hosps....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahmed v. Pannone
...of the prior determination, or adhere to the portions of the prior determination challenged upon reargument ( see Askew v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 942, 417 N.Y.S.2d 783). Upon reargument, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the summary judgment motions which sought summary judgme......
-
Matter of Heyward, Bankruptcy No. 181-10834-16.
...right breast which ultimately caused her death barred because Notice of Claim was not timely filed); Askew v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 942, 417 N.Y.S.2d 783 (App.Div., 2d Dept. 1979) (malpractice action against the City dismissed because Notice of Claim was filed forty-nine days late); C......
-
Storey v. Sum
...toll the running of the Statute of Limitations or the notice requirements under General Municipal Law § 50-e (see, Askew v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 942, 417 N.Y.S.2d 783). Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. All concur, except Callahan, J.P., and Doerr, ......
-
Barzilay v. Gheida
... ... June 25, 1979 ... Marcel Weisman, New York" City (Jacob F. Suslovich, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants ... \xC2" ... ...