From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francisco v. Maniglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 24, 1977
57 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

May 24, 1977


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 15, 1976, granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendant-appellant's affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations and denying appellant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint herein, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying plaintiff's motion to strike the above-mentioned affirmative defense, and as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Special Term erroneously held that "the undisputed evidence submitted * * * demonstrated that the last date upon which plaintiff was treated by the moving defendant for the condition which is the subject of this action was April 16, 1973". (Emphasis supplied.) While appellant admitted seeing plaintiff at the clinic of defendant hospital on April 16, 1973, he claims that he treated him on that occasion only for "an infection of the ear canal * * * totally unrelated to the operative procedure performed on the plaintiff * * * on the 22nd day of March, 1973." A triable issue of fact is thus squarely presented requiring denial of plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appellant's defense of Statute of Limitations.

Concur — Birns, J.P., Silverman, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

Francisco v. Maniglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 24, 1977
57 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Francisco v. Maniglia

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL FRANCISCO, Respondent, v. ANTONIO MANIGLIA, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 24, 1977

Citations

57 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Melendez v. City of New York

Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie basis for striking the affirmative defense. While plaintiff clearly…

Levy v. Schnader

, 1978 defendant examined and X-rayed plaintiff's teeth and recommended that tooth No. 31 be removed. An…