General
Alice Ewen-Massa et al., Respondents, v. John P. Hemmerlein, Appellant
237 A.D.2d 968654 N.Y.S.2d 536·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1997·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Alice Ewen-Massa et al., Respondents, v John P. Hemmerlein, Appellant.
[654 NYS2d 536]
[MAJORITY]
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff Alice Ewen-Massa returned to defendant’s office seeking treatment "for a matter related to the initial treatment” (McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 406) and was treated by defendant’s physician’s assistant. We conclude that there is a sufficient relationship between the physician’s assistant and defendant to warrant application of the continuous treatment doctrine and that the complaint was not untimely (see, CPLR 214-a; Ganapolskaya v V.I.P. Med. Assocs., 221 AD2d 59, 62-63; Pierre-Louis v Ching-Yuan Hwa, 182 AD2d 55, 58; Watkins v Fromm, 108 AD2d 233, 237-239).
We reject defendant’s contention that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply to toll the Statute of Limitations with respect to plaintiff Paul T. Massa’s derivative claim (see, Cappelluti v Sckolnick, 207 AD2d 763). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.