From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shister v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 2003
309 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09462

Submitted September 25, 2003.

October 27, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 30, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and the City of New York which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation.

Sherman Basichas, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alisa R. Lebensohn of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart, Ryan M. Donihue, and Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter HHC), the plaintiffs timely sought leave to serve a late notice of claim by filing an order to show cause commencing a special proceeding seeking that relief before the governing statute of limitations expired ( see Benejan v. New York City Tr. Auth., 306 A.D.2d 1). The statute of limitations was tolled from the time the plaintiffs commenced their proceeding until the subsequent order granting them leave became effective ( see Giblin v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 61 N.Y.2d 67, 74; Cruz v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 553), and therefore their action was timely commenced.

We decline to address HHC's remaining contention, as it was not ruled upon by the Supreme Court ( see Pepe v. Tannenbaum, 262 A.D.2d 381, 383; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536, 542-543).

ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shister v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 2003
309 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Shister v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ELLA SHISTER, ETC., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., defendants…

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

Date published: Oct 27, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 109

Citing Cases

Alvarez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the…

Kane v. Leistman

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The Supreme Court did not…