§Why CasetextPricing

Darlene M. Lohnas, Respondent,v.Frank A. Luzi, Jr., M.D. et al., Appellants.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. McDermott v. Torre

    56 N.Y.2d 399 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 440 times
    Borrowing rationale from medical malpractice cases

  2. Massie v. Crawford

    78 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 197 times
    Concluding that a physician's insertion of an IUD was for routine gynecological examinations and not therapy to correct her medical condition, thus the continuous treatment exception did not apply

  3. Cox v. Kingsboro Medical Group

    88 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 169 times

    Argued April 30, 1996 Decided June 11, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Jules L. Spodek, J. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac and Allen H. Isaac of counsel), for appellants. Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein Deutsch, L.L.P., New York City (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative

  4. Cannon v. Putnam

    76 N.Y.2d 644 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 181 times
    In Cannon, "the defendant decided to have a free standing floodlight installed on his property to illuminate his front yard and its two artificial ponds."

  5. Rizk v. Cohen

    73 N.Y.2d 98 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 177 times
    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"

  6. Gomez v. Katz

    61 A.D.3d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 97 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.

  7. Richardson v. Orentreich

    64 N.Y.2d 896 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 170 times
    Applying continuing treatment doctrine to medical malpractice

  8. Allende v. N.Y. City Health Hosp. Corp.

    90 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 102 times
    Finding that “that both plaintiff and the doctors ... expected that she would return for further treatment”

  9. Chestnut v. Bobb–McKoy

    94 A.D.3d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 23 times
    Finding triable issue of fact as to whether continuous treatment existed where patient made "frequen[t]" visits for, inter alia, bilateral knee pain, leg swelling and high levels of alkaline phosphates in the blood (symptoms associated with lung cancer ) over "relatively short period of 13 months" and where doctor engaged in "intens [e]" course of treatment of the plaintiff's knee condition

  10. Devadas v. Niksarli

    120 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 19 times

    2014-09-4 Johnson DEVADAS, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Kevin NIKSARLI, M.D., et al., Defendants–Appellants. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, Chappaqua (Todd J. Krouner of counsel), for respondents. MAZZARELLI Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, Chappaqua (Todd J. Krouner of counsel), for respondents. MAZZARELLI, J.P

  11. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review