Opinion
2013-02-26
Richard Djeddah, Plaintiff, Rachel DJEDDAH, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Daniel Turk WILLIAMS, Defendant–Respondent.
Rachel Djeddah, appellant pro se. Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, New York (Janine L. Peress of counsel), for respondent.
Rachel Djeddah, appellant pro se. Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, New York (Janine L. Peress of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 24, 2011, which denied plaintiff Rachel Djeddah's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Even if plaintiff received treatment from defendant, any such treatment ceased in or around June 1994. The limitations periods for the claims plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint expired long ago ( seeCPLR 214–a [medical malpractice]; 215[3] [defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress] ). The “relation back” doctrine does not avail plaintiff because her original pleading asserted only a loss of consortium claim ( see *44483 A.D.3d 590, 920 N.Y.S.2d 908 [1st Dept. 2011];CPLR 203[f] ).