Legal Opinion

Koenigsberg v. Tannous

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

Decided March 25, 1996PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court correctly determined that there was an issue of fact regarding whether the visits of the plaintiff’s decedent to the offices of the appellants between October 19, 1983, and January 25, 1990, were for "routine examinations”, such that the Statute of Limitations was not tolled, or whether they were for "continuous treatment” for "the same condition which gave rise to the claim of malpractice”, sufficient to toll the Statute of Limitations (McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399; see, Bartolo v Monaco, 202 AD2d 535; Yelin v American Dental Ctr., 184 AD2d 693, 695; Patterson v Minehan,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McDermott v. TorreNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Ganess v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Yelin v. American Dental CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  4. Bartolo v. MonacoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  5. Patterson v. MinehanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Chulla v. DiStefanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Pietromonaco v. SchwartzmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API