Summary
In Manko v. Mannor, 55 A.D.3d 471, 865 N.Y.S.2d 549, a medical malpractice action commenced by the same plaintiff as appears in this action, the Appellate Division, First Department, inter alia, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Additionally, the First Department determined that the plaintiff's arguments, “including that the relation back and continuous treatment doctrines preclude dismissal of the complaint,” were “unavailing” (id.).
Summary of this case from Manko v. Lenox Hill Hosp.Opinion
No. 4425.
October 28, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 22, 2007, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and dismissed as moot plaintiffs cross motions for, inter alia, further discovery and a stay of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Nella Manko, appellant pro se.
Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein Deutsch, LLP, New York (Elliot J. Zucker of counsel), for Dana Mannor, Alan Tikotsky, L.H. Radiologists, P.C. and Matthew Lubin, respondents.
Garson DeCorato Cohen, LLP, New York (Anna R. Schwartz of counsel), for Lenox Hill Hospital, respondent.
Before: Tom, JP, Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since the alleged malpractice occurred in 2002 and the action was not commenced until September 2006, which was well beyond the 272-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214-a).
We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that the relation back and continuous treatment doctrines preclude dismissal of the complaint, and find them unavailing.