Summary
This Appellate Division, First Department decision affirms the Supreme Court's dismissal of a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Stuart Seidman as time-barred under the two-and-a-half-year statute of limitations. The court found that even applying the most favorable date for the plaintiff, the action was commenced more than five years late. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting the application of the continuous treatment toll to excuse the delay. Consequently, both the underlying judgment and the related appeal were unanimously affirmed and dismissed without costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action is barred by the 2½‑year statute of limitations under CPLR 214‑a.
- Whether the continuous‑treatment toll exception applies to extend the limitations period.
Holdings
- The action is time‑barred and must be dismissed.
Key quotations
“The court correctly dismissed this action as time‑barred by the 2½‑year statute of limitations on medical malpractice actions (CPLR 214‑a).” (at *1)
Factual background
Nachum Borek filed a medical malpractice action on November 4, 2021 alleging injury from treatment by Dr. Stuart Seidman. The last interaction with Dr. Seidman occurred on February 18, 2014. New York's 2½‑year statute of limitations for medical malpractice (CPLR 214‑a) therefore barred the claim.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County entered a judgment on December 20, 2023 dismissing the complaint against Dr. Seidman and an order on September 13, 2023 granting his motion to vacate default and dismiss as time‑barred. Borek appealed both the judgment and the order to the Appellate Division, First Department.