Legal Opinion

Stilloe v. Contini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 17, 1993PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Mikoll, J. P.

The issue here is whether defendant William Contini or defendant Associates in Medicine, P. C. (hereinafter AIM) rendered continuous treatment to plaintiff by renewing plaintiff’s prescription for prednisone by telephone and, thus, tolling the Statute of Limitations. Under the doctrine of continuous treatment, the time in which to bring a malpractice action is stayed when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint (see, McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McDermott v. TorreNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Borgia v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
  3. Richardson v. OrentreichNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Cooper v. KaplanNew York Court of Appeals · 1991

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Oksman v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  2. Murray v. CharapAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  3. Forte v. WeinerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  4. Swift v. ColmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  5. Engelbart v. SchachterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API