Lettieri v. Allen
| Decision Date | 10 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | 5195. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 00987,59 A.D.3d 202,873 N.Y.S.2d 39 |
| Parties | ROBERT LETTIERI, Appellant, v. ANSWORTH ALLEN, M.D., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The motion court properly granted defendants leave to amend their answer to raise the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations (see CPLR 3025 [b]). Although the motion was made on the eve of trial and more than two years after defendants answered the complaint, given plaintiff's assertion that his intent from the inception of the action was to pursue a claim for battery, which is governed by a one-year statute of limitations (CPLR 215 [3]), he cannot reasonably claim to have been prejudiced or surprised by defendants' request to amend their answers (see Solomon Holding Corp. v Golia, 55 AD3d 507 [2008]; Seda v New York City Hous. Auth., 181 AD2d 469 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 759 [1992]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff's argument that defendants waived the defense since they had notice of his intention to pursue a battery claim, the record shows that plaintiff consistently described his action as one for medical malpractice, not battery, and his allegations that defendants' decision to perform a tenotomy resulted from their misdiagnosis of a torn biceps tendon as a superior labrum anterior-posterior tear, coupled with his consistent assertions that defendants treated him without his informed consent, are the essence of a claim for lack of informed consent (see Messina v Alan Matarasso, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C., 284 AD2d 32 [2001]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC
...undermining any claim of prejudice due to Genesis Holding subsequently seeking to plead this defense.See Lettieri v. Allen, 59 A.D.3d 202, 873 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1st Dep't 2009). Once plaintiff revealed the evidence relied on for standing, Genesis Holding raised plaintiff's lack of standing in op......
-
Jones v.
...after the filing of the note of issue, may be permitted in the absence of a claim of prejudice or surprise. See Lettieri v. Allen, 59 A.D.3d 202, 873 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1st Dep't 2009); Byrne v. Fordham University, 118 A.D.2d 525, 500 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1st Dep't 1986). Despite the laxity of CPLR 3025......
-
Ramos v. Keston Brown, Gristede's Foods, Inc.
...after the filing of the note of issue, may be permitted in the absence of a claim of prejudice or surprise. See Lettieri v. Allen, 59 A.D.3d 202,873 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1st Dep't 2009); Byrne v. Fordham University, 118 A.D.2d 525, 500 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1st Dep't 1986). Despite the laxity of CPLR 3025(......
-
Yenem Corp. v. 281 Broadway Holdings
...counterclaims against Randall is apparently meritorious and will neither prejudice nor surprise that plaintiff ( see Lettieri v. Allen, 59 A.D.3d 202, 873 N.Y.S.2d 39 [2009] ). Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered September 18, 2008, wh......