From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mederos v.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 24, 2017
61 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

10-24-2017

Paul G. MEDEROS, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant.

Schiavetti, Corgan, DiEdwards, Weinberg & Nicholson, LLP, New York (Samantha E. Quinn of Counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of David B. Golomb, New York (David B. Golomb of Counsel), for respondent.


Schiavetti, Corgan, DiEdwards, Weinberg & Nicholson, LLP, New York (Samantha E. Quinn of Counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of David B. Golomb, New York (David B. Golomb of Counsel), for respondent.

Supreme Court correctly found that the CPLR 208 toll did not terminate upon the appointment of the article 81 guardian (see Henry v. City of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 275, 702 N.Y.S.2d 580, 724 N.E.2d 372 [1999] ; Giannicos v. Bellevue Hosp. Med. Ctr., 42 A.D.3d 379, 840 N.Y.S.2d 327 [1st Dept.2007] ; Costello v. North Shore Univ. Hosp. Ctr. for Extended Care & Rehabilitation, 273 A.D.2d 190, 709 N.Y.S.2d 108 [2d Dept.2000] ). The 90–day period to serve the notice of claim was not extended by the CPLR 208 toll (see Yessenia D. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 139 A.D.3d 454, 29 N.Y.S.3d 788 [1st Dept.2016] ). However the 90–day period was tolled in this case by the continuous treatment doctrine.

RENWICK, J.P., MAZZARELLI, OING, and SINGH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mederos v.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 24, 2017
61 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Mederos v.

Case Details

Full title:Paul G. MEDEROS, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 24, 2017

Citations

61 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)