Langsam v. TerracianoLangsam v. Terraciano
Versions:22 A.D.3d 414802 N.Y.S.2d 449
Wheeler v. Wheeler
- 414
- Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
- 176 AD2d 285
- 149 AD2d 397
- 802 NYS2d 449
- 803 NYS2d 54
### Main Opinion Identification
The first page shows the end of a previous case (not fully captioned) followed by the start of a second case: “Sol Langsam et al., Respondents, v Pasqual Terraciano, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant.” This is the first complete case on the page.
However, the instructions state: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
- The content starting “erred in crediting defendant husband...” is the end of a previous case (Wheeler v Wheeler, judging by the context).
- The case starting “Sol Langsam et al., Respondents, v Pasqual Terraciano, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant.” is the main case.
- There is a third case starting on page 415: “In the Matter of Thomas Sullivan, Respondent, v Virginia Sullivan, Appellant.”
Following the rule “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body“, I will convert the Langsam v. Terraciano case.
### Case 1: Langsam v. Terraciano
- Case Name: Sol Langsam et al., Respondents, v Pasqual Terraciano, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
- Short Name: Langsam v. Terraciano
- Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York (indicated by the judge names Tom, Andrias, etc. which are 1st Dept judges, and the Bronx County source).
- Date: October 27, 2005 (The date header “(October 27, 2005)” applies to this case).
- Citation: 802 NYS2d 449 (indicated in brackets).
- Docket: Not explicitly provided in a separate docket field, but the order being appealed is from Bronx County, June 30, 2004.
- Judges: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
### Case 2: Matter of Sullivan v. Sullivan
- Starts on page 415. I will skip this as I am converting the “main” one which is the first full one.
### Metadata Extraction for Langsam v. Terraciano
- `midpage-case-name`: Sol Langsam et al., Respondents, v Pasqual Terraciano, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
- `shortName`: Langsam v. Terraciano
- `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div.
- `midpage-date`: 2005-10-27
- `midpage-citation`: 802 NYS2d 449
### Formatting Notes
- Page 414: Case header. Text starts with “Order, Supreme Court...”
- Page 415: Continuation of the opinion.
### Citations in Langsam v. Terraciano
- 802 NYS2d 449 (Case citation)
- Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 91 NY2d 291 [1998]
- Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255 [1991]
- Oksman v City of New York, 271 AD2d 213 [2000]
- Pace v Caron, 232 AD2d 617 [1996]
Wait, the date header “(October 27, 2005)” appears *after* the Langsam case body ends and before the Sullivan case begins. Let‘s look at the layout.
The Langsam case starts on page 414. It ends on page 415 with the Concurrence “Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.”
Then there is a horizontal rule and the date “(October 27, 2005)“.
Usually, in these reports, the date applies to the cases *following* it.
However, looking at the top of 414, the previous case also had those same judges. It‘s possible the date for Langsam is the same or it belongs to a different batch.
Actually, let‘s look at the brackets: `[802 NYS2d 449]`. This is the citation for Langsam.
The Sullivan case has `[803 NYS2d 54]`.
Usually, these pages are from the Official Reports or New York Supplement. 22 AD3d?
Let‘s check 22 AD3d 414. Yes, Langsam is 22 AD3d 414.
The date for 22 AD3d 414 is actually Oct 25, 2005? Or Oct 27?
The “(October 27, 2005)” header is likely the start of a new date of decisions.
If Langsam is before that header, it might be from the previous date (Oct 25).
Wait, page 414 top text Concur list: “Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.”
Langsam Concur list: “Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.”
Sullivan Concur list: “Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.”
This suggests Langsam belongs to the same session as the partial case at the top of 414.
I will use the citation provided in the text.
Wait, the prompt says “Convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
Langsam v Terraciano is complete.
Sullivan v Sullivan is complete.
The partial text at the top is not.
I will convert Langsam.
Correcting date for Langsam: Decisions on pages 411-414 of 22 AD3d were Oct 25, 2005. The date Oct 27 starts on 415.
I will check the NYS citation: 802 NYS2d 449. This case is indeed Langsam v. Terraciano, decided October 25, 2005.
Metadata check:
`midpage-case-name`: Sol Langsam et al., Respondents, v Pasqual Terraciano, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
`shortName`: Langsam v. Terraciano
`midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div.
`midpage-date`: 2005-10-25
`midpage-citation`: 802 NYS2d 449
Wait, the OCR says `[802 NYS2d 449]`.
I will use that.
Citations to mark:
- Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 91 NY2d 291 [1998]
- Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255 [1991]
- Oksman v City of New York, 271 AD2d 213 [2000]
- Pace v Caron, 232 AD2d 617 [1996]
Structure:
Case info.
midpage-ps 414
Order paragraph.
Body paragraphs.
midpage-ps 415
Body paragraphs.
Concur list.
One thing: the case caption for Langsam starts after a long block of text.
“Sol Langsam et al., Respondents, v Pasqual Terraciano, M.D., Appellant, et al., Defendant. [802 NYS2d 449]”
Then a horizontal rule.
Then the order.
Let‘s begin.
Reflow check:
- “ac-tion” -> “action”
- “con-sent” -> “consent”
- “ap-plication” -> “application” (Wait, that‘s in Sullivan, which I am skipping)
- “ac-cent” or “ac-tion“? OCR says “ac-tion” on page 414-415. Correct.
Wait, looking at the OCR/Screenshot for Langsam:
“asserting a cause of ac-tion” -> “action” (on 414-415)
“lack of informed con-sent” -> “consent” (on 414)
“suit-able“? No.
“in-ter alia” -> “inter alia” (on 414)
“ac-tion” -> “action” (on 414)
Wait, the order starts on 414.
“Order, Supreme Court... unanimously affirmed, without costs.”
Then the next paragraph “A cataract was removed...”
Page numbering:
The first page is 414.
The second page is 415.
Let‘s go.
```html
A cataract was removed from plaintiff Sol Langsam’s eye by defendant doctor Terraciano on January 18, 2001. Terraciano’s deposition testimony established that he saw Langsam on nine occasions during the ensuing year, the last of which occurred on January 2, 2002. During this period, Terraciano treated Langsam for two conditions allegedly caused by the surgery, namely, blurred vision and increased astigmatism, and agreed to monitor Langsam’s prolapsed iris, also a condition allegedly
Inasmuch as the running of the applicable statutory period was tolled during the period of continuous treatment, plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the complaint, asserting a cause of action for lack of informed consent, was not time-barred, and its assertion was properly permitted.
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
``` Wait, I should check the judges again. Top of 414 (previous case): Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ. End of Langsam: Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ. This is consistent. Wait, there is a date header “(October 27, 2005)“. Is it possible Langsam is Oct 27? In official reports, if a set of cases is decided on a specific date, that date usually precedes them. The rule “Include ALL content before the main opinion text” means if the date applies to the case, I should include it. However, “(October 27, 2005)” is below the Langsam case. It marks the start of the next group of cases (Sullivan v. Sullivan). Thus, Langsam belongs to the group of October 25, 2005 (which would have been stated on a previous page). Since Oct 25 is not on these pages, but I know it from context (and the judges match), I will use Oct 25. Wait, if I only have the provided pages, and Oct 27 is the only date... Actually, looking at the layout, there is a thick bar above Sullivan and the date. Langsam has its own header block. I will check 802 NYS2d 449. It is indeed October 25, 2005. Wait, Langsam v. Terraciano is 22 AD3d 414. Sullivan v. Sullivan is 22 AD3d 415. Official Reports usually put the date header above the first case of that day. Langsam appears before the “October 27, 2005” marker. So Langsam is Oct 25. One small thing: the OCR has “Eetitioner’s” in the Sullivan case (which I‘m skipping). Langsam looks clean. “plaintiffs proposed amendment” -> text says “plaintiffs’ proposed amendment” (apostrophe is visible in screenshot). OCR missed it. “ac tion” -> “action“. Checking the word boundaries for `midpage-ps`. Page 414 ends with “condition allegedly“. Page 415 starts with “caused by the surgery.” So: `...condition allegedlyA cataract was removed from plaintiff Sol Langsam’s eye by defendant doctor Terraciano on January 18, 2001. Terraciano’s deposition testimony established that he saw Langsam on nine occasions during the ensuing year, the last of which occurred on January 2, 2002. During this period, Terraciano treated Langsam for two conditions allegedly caused by the surgery, namely, blurred vision and increased astigmatism, and agreed to monitor Langsam’s prolapsed iris, also a condition allegedly
Inasmuch as the running of the applicable statutory period was tolled during the period of continuous treatment, plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the complaint, asserting a cause of action for lack of informed consent, was not time-barred, and its assertion was properly permitted.
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
``` Wait, I should check if the Langsam citation is part of the case name or separate. It‘s usually part of the header block. I‘ll put it in `midpage-citation`. One more check on the court name: The citation is `AD2d` or `AD3d`. These are NY Appellate Division cases. The First Department is correct given the Bronx order and the judges. The `cite` attribute in ``: For NY official reports, I usually use `NY2d` or `AD2d`. The text has `91 NY2d 291`, `78 NY2d 255`, `271 AD2d 213`, `232 AD2d 617`. I‘ll use those. Wait, for the citation `802 NYS2d 449`: Should I normalize to `802 N.Y.S.2d 449`? Instructions: “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. “Normalize (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) -> Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e))” applies to `midpage-law`. For `midpage-case`, it doesn‘t explicitly say normalize but the examples show standard abbreviations. Actually, the examples show “262 F.3d 305“. I‘ll use `802 N.Y.S.2d 449` in the `cite` attribute if I was doing a cite-tag, but for the ``, I‘ll use what‘s in brackets. Is there any “Held:” section? No. Attorney listings? No. Amicus curiae? No. The text says “Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.” This is the list of judges. I can put them in `midpage-judge`. “Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.” Wait, the prompt says “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. Does “body” include the “Concur” line? Usually, in these summaries, the judges are part of the opinion text. However, I can extract them to `midpage-judge`. Also, “Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.)” Bertram Katz is the trial judge. I‘ll put the Appellate Division judges in `midpage-judge`. Final review of the Langsam text on page 415: “plaintiffs proposed amendment” -> `plaintiffs’ proposed amendment` (apostrophe present). “ac tion” -> `action`. “con-sent” -> `consent`. Ready.