From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. City of N.Y

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
May 15, 1963
39 Misc. 2d 445 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963)

Opinion

May 15, 1963

Gellman Gellman for plaintiff.

Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel, for defendant.


Plaintiff moves to strike the defense of failure "to comply with the provisions of section 50E of the General Municipal Law". This is a malpractice action against the city. The deceased infant was initially taken to the City Hospital on April 23, 1962 for treatment of smoke poisoning, and she was released therefrom on April 30, 1962. The infant remained ill and was taken back to the hospital on May 6, 1962. She was removed to another hospital on the same day and died on May 8.

In a malpractice action against the City of New York, a notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues (General Municipal Law, § 50-e). The Court of Appeals has recently held that "when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint, the `accrual' comes only at the end of the treatment" ( Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155). There is no requirement that the injured party be confined to the hospital during the entire period complained of in order for there to be "continuous treatment". Therefore, the notice of claim served on August 3, 1962 was timely served, and this motion is granted.


Summaries of

Armstrong v. City of N.Y

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
May 15, 1963
39 Misc. 2d 445 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963)
Case details for

Armstrong v. City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:ROY ARMSTRONG, as Administrator of the Estate of RENEE ARMSTRONG…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: May 15, 1963

Citations

39 Misc. 2d 445 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963)
240 N.Y.S.2d 663

Citing Cases

Modave v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center

In four post- Borgia cases dealing with interrupted treatment, the courts have suggested that even when…

Kossick v. United States

In any event, under our view that determination of the start of the two-year period under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)…