From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bartolo v. Monaco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1994
202 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses of the Statute of Limitations as to all acts occurring prior to May 2, 1988, is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In 1985, the plaintiff's decedent Anne Bartolo visited the defendant Michael A. Monaco, with complaints of a lump in her left breast. Dr. Monaco made an initial diagnosis of fibrocystic disease, and referred Mrs. Bartolo to a radiologist for a mammogram. On May 3, 1985, Dr. Monaco consulted with plaintiffs concerning the results of the mammography. Thereafter, during the period from May 3, 1985, to May 2, 1988, Mrs. Bartolo made frequent visits to the defendants' office, including numerous visits in 1986 and 1987 for prenatal and postpartum care. The plaintiff alleges that during this period defendant also rendered continuous treatment for Mrs. Bartolo's breast condition, thereby tolling the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a; McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399; Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151). The defendants submitted documentary evidence refuting the plaintiff's claims that continuous treatment was rendered for the breast condition during the period in question. Inasmuch as the exact nature of decedent's continuing visits to the defendants' office presents a question of fact for which there is conflicting evidence, the Supreme Court erred by striking the affirmative defenses of the Statute of Limitations with respect to acts occurring prior to May 2, 1988 (see, McDermott v. Torre, supra; cf., Nykorchuck v. Henriques, 78 N.Y.2d 255). The issue of whether or not the continuous treatment doctrine may be applied to this case remains a question of fact for a jury's resolution (see, Yelin v. American Dental Ctr., 184 A.D.2d 693, 695). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bartolo v. Monaco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1994
202 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Bartolo v. Monaco

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT BARTOLO, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of ANNE…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 275

Citing Cases

Shipman v. Mazzola

However, issues of fact exist regarding whether the treatment provided by defendants from May 29, 2002…

Regency Club at Wallkill, LLC v. Appel Design Group, P.A.

plaintiff reached a settlement with the Attorney General's office. Since there is conflicting evidence as to…