Kleinman v. Lack
| Decision Date | 06 October 1958 |
| Citation | 179 N.Y.S.2d 194,6 A.D.2d 1046 |
| Parties | Julius KLEINMAN, Respondent, v. Cyrus LACK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph J. Brophy, New York City, for defendant-appellant, Robert J. Fink, New York City, on the brief.
Seymour Forman, New York City, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and MURPHY, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for malpractice, the appeal is from an order denying a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
Alleged fraud in concealing the injury does not preclude pleading the Statute of Limitations as a defense. Ranalli v. Breed, 251 App.Div. 750, 297 N.Y.S. 688, affirmed 277 N.Y. 630, 14 N.E.2d 195; Conklin v. Draper, 229 App.Div. 227, 241 N.Y.S. 529, affirmed 254 N.Y. 620, 173 N.E. 892; Tulloch v. Haselo, 218 App.Div. 313, 218 N.Y.S. 139. It is conceded that the action was not commenced within the requisite two years from the date of its accrual.
Apart from such concession, however, it is our opinion that the defense of the Statute of Limitations pleaded in the answer 'is founded upon facts established prima facie by documentary evidence', as required by the provisions of the rule (Rules of Civil Practice, rule 113). Such documentary evidence consists of the summons and complaint submitted in support of the motion and which demonstrate, prima facie, that the action was not commenced within the two-year time limitation prescribed for an action to recover damages for malpractice (Civil Practice Act, § 50, subd. 1).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Roloff
...(1926), 218 App.Div. 313, 218 N.Y.S. 139. Failure to disclose a negligent act constitutes an act of malpractice. Kleinman v. Lack (1958), 6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y.S.2d 194.7 See Annot., Statute of Limitations--Malpractice, 80 A.L.R.2d 368, 388--390; 78--84 A.L.R.2d, Later Case Service, 112--1......
-
Holdridge v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara
...an integral part of the malpractice cause of action. Simcuski v. Saeli, App. Div., 395 N.Y.S.2d 776 (4th Dept. 1977); Kleinman v. Lack, 6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y. S.2d 194 (2d Dept. 1958); Tulloch v. Haselo, 218 App.Div. 313, 218 N.Y.S. 139 (3d Dept. This Court is of the opinion that the New Y......
-
Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital
...in this State as not sufficient to base a separable cause of action subject to the fraud Statute of Limitations (Kleinman v. Lack, 6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y.S.2d 194). On the other hand, with respect to treatment malpractice, there is real concern over uncontrolled opening up of the limitation......
-
Stacey v. Pantano
...266, 12 Cal.Rptr. 648; Stafford v. Shultz, 42 Cal.2d 767, 270 P.2d 1; McCoy v. Stevens, 182 Wash. 55, 44 P.2d 797; Kleinman v. Lack, 6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y.S.2d 194; Swankowski v. Diethelm, 98 Ohio App. 271, 129 N.E.2d Plaintiff cites and argues several cases from other jurisdictions as sup......