From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guglich v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 2003
305 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1044

May 6, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered July 9, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this medical malpractice action as against them as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Donald M. Zolin, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Richard Paul Stone, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez, JJ.


Plaintiff Stanley Guglich commenced this action in July 1999, alleging that defendant-respondent doctors by reason of negligence caused and/or failed to diagnose an infection of his knee. In 1996, the infection was successfully treated by removal of a previously inserted knee prosthesis followed by a course of antibiotic treatment and reinsertion of the prosthesis. According to plaintiff's bill of particulars, the complained-of negligence occurred "on or about 1994 and no later than June 1996." It follows that unless defendants-respondents' subsequent treatment of plaintiff through at least January 1997 may be deemed "continuous treatment," i.e., treatment running continuously from and related to the condition that gave rise to the lawsuit, the action as against defendants-respondents is time-barred under the applicable two-and-a-half-year limitation period (CPLR 214-a; see Nykorchuck v. Henriques, 78 N.Y.2d 255; McDermott v. Torres, 56 N.Y.2d 399, 405). Plaintiff did not, in response to defendants-respondents' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Massie v. Crawford, 78 N.Y.2d 516, 519), meet his resulting burden to raise a triable issue as to whether his treatment by defendants subsequent to 1996 and through at least January 1997 was for the same condition that defendants allegedly caused and/or failed to diagnose. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred was proper (see id.; cf. Ramirez v. Friedman, 287 A.D.2d 376).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Guglich v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 2003
305 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Guglich v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY GUGLICH, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GLENN SCHWARTZ, M.D.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 6, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 653

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Southampton Urgent Med.-Care, P.C.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that so much of the complaint as was based upon alleged acts of medical…

Cabrera v. New York City Transit Auth.

Once the defendant properly raises a statute of limitations defense, the plaintiff has the burden of proving…