Richmond v. Capers
| Decision Date | 21 October 1968 |
| Citation | 30 A.D.2d 976,294 N.Y.S.2d 651 |
| Parties | Vernon C. RICHMOND et al., Appellants, v. Ellison V. CAPERS, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jack Economou, Poughkeepsie, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Maynard, O'Connor & Smith, Albany, for defendant-respondent.
Before BRENNAN, Acting P.J., and RABIN, HOPKINS, BENJAMIN and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, dated March 4, 1968 and entered in Dutchess County on March 6, 1968, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, as barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 3211, subd. (a), par. 5), reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. No questions of fact were considered. Judgment entered in Dutchess County upon said order on March 6, 1968 vacated.
In our opinion, the complaint sounds in malpractice; and the Statute of Limitations as to such cause commences to run at the termination of the course of treatment 'for the same or related * * * injuries' (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 157, 237 N.Y.S.2d 319, 322, 187 N.E.2d 777, 779). The defendant physician having treated the plaintiff wife for an injury allegedly caused during surgery performed by him, a cause of action based on the injury did not accrue until the termination of the treatment. The action, then, was timely brought.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wear v. State
...acts or omissions complained of. (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 237 N.Y.S.2d 319, 187 N.E.2d 777; Richmond v. Capers, 30 A.D.2d 976, 294 N.Y.S.2d 651). It is difficult to determine on the affidavits submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion whether such course of ......