Wright v. State, 1356
| Citation | 65 N.Y.S.3d 874 (Mem),156 A.D.3d 1413 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | CA 16–01612,1356 |
| Parties | Glasco WRIGHT, Claimant–Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 126445.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
156 A.D.3d 1413
65 N.Y.S.3d 874 (Mem)
Glasco WRIGHT, Claimant–Appellant,
v.
STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 126445.)
1356
CA 16–01612
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Entered: December 22, 2017
GLASCO WRIGHT, CLAIMANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. LANDERS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
In this medical malpractice action, claimant seeks to recover damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained in 2013 during treatment for an eye injury. Claimant served a notice of intention to file a claim upon the Attorney General on June 12, 2015, and thereafter filed a claim in which he alleged that he received treatment on December 17, 2013, and further treatment during the next 12 months. He did not allege that he received treatment on any dates after December 17, 2014. Defendant served an answer asserting an affirmative defense that the notice of intention and the claim were untimely under
the 90–day statute of limitations (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] ). Claimant thereafter moved, inter alia, to treat the notice of intention as a claim (see § 10[8][a] ). The Court of Claims denied that part of his motion on the ground that the notice of intention was untimely. Claimant then moved for leave to renew that part of his prior motion seeking to treat the notice of intention as a claim. In support of his motion, claimant submitted new evidence that he received additional medical treatment for his eye injury through June 11, 2015 or later, and he contended that his notice of intention was timely because the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the time in which to bring his medical malpractice claim (see generally McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399, 405, 452 N.Y.S.2d 351, 437 N.E.2d 1108 [1982] ). Claimant now appeals from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malek v. Vill. of Depew, 1347
...PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.65 N.Y.S.3d 844PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.MEMORANDUM AND ORDERMemorandum:156 A.D.3d 1413Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that he sustained when his foot fell through the pavement adjacent to a sto......
-
Clausell v. Salame, 1322
...rests in the sound discretion of the court (see Matter ofSteven B., 6 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, 850 N.E.2d 646 [2006];65 N.Y.S.3d 874 Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283–284, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447 [1984] ). The record reflects that respondent was avoiding service of......
-
Home Insulation & Supply, Inc. v. Iskalo 5000 Main, LLC, 917
...fees in the motion for summary judgment (see Heltz , 115 A.D.3d at 1299-1300, 983 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; Wright v. State of New York , 156 A.D.3d 1413, 1414-1415, 65 N.Y.S.3d 874 [4th Dept. 2017], appeal dismissed 31 N.Y.3d 1001, 74 N.Y.S.3d 162, 97 N.E.3d 710 [2018] ). "[A] motion for leave to ren......
-
Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Stensrud, 443
...1299–1300, 983 N.Y.S.2d 160 [4th Dept. 2014], affd 24 N.Y.3d 1185, 3 N.Y.S.3d 757, 27 N.E.3d 471 [2014] ; Wright v. State of New York, 156 A.D.3d 1413, 1414–1415, 65 N.Y.S.3d 874 [4th Dept. 2017], appeal dismissed 31 N.Y.3d 1001, 74 N.Y.S.3d 162, 97 N.E.3d 710 [2018] ). "[A] motion for leav......