From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearl v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1999
262 A.D.2d 106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 10, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


The Statute of Limitations applicable to this action to recover for alleged latent effects of exposure to DES is CPLR 214-c (2), which requires such an action to be commenced within three years from the plaintiff's discovery of the injury. "All that is necessary to start the limitations period is that plaintiff be aware of the primary condition for which damages are sought" ( Whitney v. Quaker Chem. Corp., 90 N.Y.2d 845, 847). Here, plaintiff's symptomology manifested itself, to plaintiff's knowledge, and sufficiently for medical personnel to recommend surgery, in February 1992. Under these circumstances, then, the action, commenced more than three years later, in August 1995, was time-barred.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.


Summaries of

Pearl v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1999
262 A.D.2d 106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Pearl v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS G. PEARL, Appellant, v. ELI LILLY COMPANY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

Matter of Huggler v. City of New York

Notably, an injury, in this context, refers to "an actual illness, physical condition or other similar…

Huggler v. City of NY

Notably, an injury, in this context, refers to "an actual illness, physical condition or other similarly…