From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scrofini v. Sebollena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 15, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply and dismissed the action as untimely ( see, Jorge v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 905). Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scrofini v. Sebollena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Scrofini v. Sebollena

Case Details

Full title:NANCY SCROFINI et al., Appellants, v. M. ELIZABETH G. SEBOLLENA et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

B.F. v. Reprod. Med. Assocs. of N.Y., LLP

Since Becker, this Court and others have properly applied CPLR 214–a in the context of these medical…