Conklin v. Draper
| Decision Date | 21 October 1930 |
| Citation | 173 N.E. 892,254 N.Y. 620 |
| Parties | CONKLIN v. DRAPER. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Julia Conklin against John W. Draper. From an order of the Appellate Division (229 App. Div. 227, 241 N. Y. S. 529), which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for dismissal of the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, and granted the motion, plaintiff appeals, and question is certified.
Order of Appellate Division affirmed, and question answered.
Appeal, by permission (229 App. Div. 849, 242 N. Y. S. 923), from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (229 App. Div. 227, 241 N. Y. S. 529), entered May 2, 1930, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a dismissal of the first cause of action set forth in the complaint and granted the motion. The action, commenced July 5, 1929, was to recover for alleged malpractice committed on or about May 27, 1925, it being conceded that the defendant did not attend or treat the plaintiff subsequent to June 10, 1925. The complaint alleged as a first cause of action that the plaintiff employed the defendant to perform a surgical operation upon her, and that in the course of the operation defendant used a pair of arterial forceps which he failed to remove before closing the wound, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff was forced to undergo a second operation. The following question was certified: ‘Under the circumstances set forth herein is the first cause of action contained in the complaint herein barred by the Statute of Limitations contained in section 50, subdivision 1, of the Civil Practice Act.’James B. McDonough, Jr., and Arthur C. Power, both of New York City, for appellant.
Lorenz J. Brosnan, of New York City, for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shideler v. Dwyer
... ... Conklin v. Draper, 229 App.Div. 227, 241 N.Y.S. 529, affirmed 254 N.Y. 620, 173 N.E. 892; Wiener v. Ellrodt, 268 N.Y. 646, 198 N.E. 537; Capucci v. Barone, ... ...
-
Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital
... ... in which it held that in a foreign object medical malpractice case the Statute of Limitations begins to run from the commission of the act (Conklin v. Draper, 229 App.Div. 227, 241 N.Y.S. 529, affd. 254 N.Y ... 620, 173 N.E. 892). At the time we considered Conklin no other jurisdiction had a ... ...
-
Manno v. Levi
... ... (Conklin v Draper, 229 App.Div. 227 ; affd. 254 N.Y. 620 ; Wiener v Ellrodt, 268 N.Y. 646 ; Capucci v Barone, 266 Mass. 578 .) ... "We must apply that ... ...
-
Tessier v. United States
... ... Santee, 1919, 99 Ohio St. 361, 124 N.E. 238; Conklin v. Draper, 1930, 229 App.Div. 227, 241 N.Y.S. 529, nor can the appellant simply be said to have known at the time of the appendectomy that he was ... ...