Legal Opinion

Bradt v. Hamel

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

Decided November 15, 1988No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: An action for medical malpractice must be commenced within 2½ years *922from the act, omission or failure complained of or 2½ years from the "last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the said act, omission or failure” (CPLR 214-a). The last date that plaintiff saw defendant Dr. Hamel was sometime in March 1979. Thus, the action against him, commenced in November 1985, is time barred and the complaint against him must be dismissed.

Plaintiff’s argument that his continuous…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hill v. St. Clare's HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Connell v. HaydenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  3. Pellegrino v. Millard Fillmore HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Polokoff v. PalmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  2. Janisch v. HowlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  3. Bradt v. HamelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API