From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1996
229 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 12, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, Sangiorgio, J.

Present Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant Roger Billig, M.D., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him, for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. The court erred, however, in granting the motion of defendant Peter Albert, M.D., to dismiss the complaint against him. Factual issues exist whether plaintiff's alleged appointment with Albert on March 7, 1983, constituted continuous treatment and, thus, whether the action was timely commenced against him (see, CPLR 214-a). Therefore, we modify the order by denying the motion of Albert and reinstating the complaint against him.


Summaries of

Perez v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1996
229 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Perez v. Albert

Case Details

Full title:HIPOLITO PEREZ, Appellant, v. PETER ALBERT et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 463