From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spaulding v. N.Y. City Hlt. Hospitals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 15, 1994
210 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 15, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas McKeon, J.).


Inasmuch as defendant has been in possession of the infant's medical records since the time of the alleged malpractice in 1982 when the infant plaintiff was born, it had actual notice of the claim that the infant's cerebral palsy was due to defendant's malpractice committed prior to and at the time of his birth, and of the underlying facts, within the limitations period, and, given this "knowledge and the resulting lack of prejudice", the almost 10-year delay in serving a notice of claim "should not be fatal" (Matter of Williams v Bronx Mun. Hosp. Ctr., 205 A.D.2d 420, 421). The branch of the motion seeking the same relief on behalf of plaintiff mother asserting a derivative claim was properly denied since it was made after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations and was therefore untimely as a matter of law (Matter of West v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 195 A.D.2d 517, 518).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Spaulding v. N.Y. City Hlt. Hospitals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 15, 1994
210 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Spaulding v. N.Y. City Hlt. Hospitals

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT SPAULDING, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, LANIECE…

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

Date published: Dec 15, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 53

Citing Cases

Schrager v. Henry J. Carter Specialty Hosp. & Nursing Facility

Indeed, respondent does note take umbrage with petitioner's assertion that its staff had receipt of…

Pearson v. N.Y.C. Health Hosp. Corp.

The First Department has repeatedly held that a defendant's possession of medical records can be sufficient…