Holding that plaintiff's claim for fraudulent concealment failed where plaintiff "relie[d] on the same act which forms the basis of his negligence claim — Dr. Cohen's alleged improper advice to plaintiff that there was nothing wrong" and, as such, "plaintiff's allegations do not establish that Dr. Cohen, acting with knowledge of prior malpractice, made subsequent misrepresentations in an attempt to conceal his earlier negligence"
Noting that, ordinarily, the statute of limitations would apply to claims asserted against newly added parties who have "been a complete stranger to the suit up to the point of the requested amendment," but acknowledging that permitting the amendment to relate back to that defendant would not be at odds with the policies underlying the statute of limitations where "within the statutory period, . . . defendant is fully aware that a claim is being made against him with respect to the transaction or occurrence involved in the suit"
61 A.D.3d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 77 times
In Gomez v. Katz, the Second Department explained that the continuous treatment doctrine contains three principal elements, the first being that the plaintiff continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period.
88 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) Cited 52 times
In Barrella v Richmond Mem. Hosp. (88 A.D.2d 379, 384, supra), the court observed that the existence of temporal gaps between treatments is a factor to be considered in determining continuity and that "no existing rule defines with any precision what amount of time shorter than the period of limitations may intervene without a break in continuity".