Caraballo v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp./Weill Cornell Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 805123/18,Case Nos. 2021–01289, 2021–01290,14521-14521A
• Citation: 198 A.D.3d 594,153 N.Y.S.3d 845 (Mem)
• Parties: Jeremy CARABALLO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL/WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER, a part of the New York Presbyterian Healthcare System Inc., Defendant–Respondent, Mount Sinai Queens Hospital, a part of the Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

198 A.D.3d 594
153 N.Y.S.3d 845 (Mem)

Jeremy CARABALLO, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL/WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER, a part of the New York Presbyterian Healthcare System Inc., Defendant–Respondent,

Mount Sinai Queens Hospital, a part of the Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., et al., Defendants.

14521-14521A
Index No. 805123/18
Case Nos. 2021–01289, 2021–01290

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED October 28, 2021

Hasapidis Law Offices, Scarsdale (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), for appellant.

Keller, O'Reilly & Watson, P.C., Woodbury (Patrick J. Engle of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Gonza´lez, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.

198 A.D.3d 594

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2020, which granted the motion of defendant The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (N.Y.PH) to dismiss the complaint as against it, and supplemental order, same court and Justice, entered October 28, 2020, which severed the action as against defendant Mount Sinai Queens Hospital and directed entry of judgment in favor of NYPH dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's last visit to the NYPH-affiliated endocrinology clinic was on July 28, 2015. The course of treatment continued through plaintiff's scheduled appointment on September 1, 2015, but terminated after he missed that appointment and did not reschedule (see

198 A.D.3d 595

Richardson v. Orentreich, 64 N.Y.2d 896, 898–99, 487 N.Y.S.2d 731, 477 N.E.2d 210 [1985] ). As a result, this action was not timely filed. Even if the September 9, 2015 communication was sufficient to demonstrate a continuing course of treatment through that date, the action would still not be timely.

That plaintiff continued to take the medications prescribed at his last appointment through July 23, 2016 is not sufficient to extend his course of treatment through that date (see Cooper v. Kaplan, 163 A.D.2d 215, 216, ...