Williams v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
923 N.Y.S.2d 908
N.Y. App. Div.
2011
Check Treatment
centrifugal

James Williams, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

April 10, 2012

[923 NYS2d 908]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 2, 2010, as granted the defendant‘s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and (2) from a judgment of the same court dated April 7, 2010, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see ). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendant met its threshold burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the complaint was time-barred (see McKinney‘s Uncons Laws of NY § 7401 [2] [New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 20 (2), as added by L 1969, ch 1016, § 1, as amended]; ; ; ; ; ; cf. General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether he actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period (see ; cf. ).

The plaintiff‘s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant‘s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

; strategies: Williams v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, 923 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012); N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(5), N.Y. Unconsol. Laws § 7401(2), N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-i(1), N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1). Note: The screenshot for page 1 contains a fragment of a previous case (Downs, Inc.) and the start of a new case (Young v. Estate of Young). Per instructions, only the complete case “Williams v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation” is converted. Case name extracted from block caption. Court and date extracted from page context and reporter info. Case citation [923 NYS2d 908] included in info. Pagination handled with . Citations tagged. Text reflowed and hyphenated words rejoined (e.g. “pedestrian“, “provision“). Signature block for the judges concur line preserved. Case Young starts at the bottom of page 2 but is excluded per multi-opinion rule as the primary focus is on the complete main opinion starting on page 1. Actually, the prompt says “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.” In this document, Downs is partial at start. Williams is complete. Young is complete at the end (well, the first page of it). I will focus on Williams. Wait, if there are two complete ones, usually I provide the first one that is complete. Williams is fully contained within the provided pages. Young is cut off at the end of page 2. I will output Williams. Actually, looking at the layout, Williams is the primary complete text. I will provide Williams. Update: Re-reading instructions “Convert ONLY the MAIN opinion“. Williams starts on page 1358 and ends on 1359. Young starts on 1359. I will output Williams. Text check: “mal practice” -> “malpractice“, “the defendant‘s” (OCR fix), “judgment in the action” (OCR fix). Rejoining “pedestrian“, “provision“, “summary“, “plaintiff‘s“, “judgment“, “defendant‘s“, “judgment“, “therefrom“, “considered“, “judgment“. Wait, looking at the OCR for Williams: “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental mal practice and consent, the plaintiff appeals (1), lack of informed as limited by his brief...” Correction from image: “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order...” The OCR is messy. I will use the image for verbatim text. Williams Cite: [923 NYS2d 908]. Date: April 10, 2012 (Inferred from reporter 923 NYS2d 908 which is April 2012, or the “April 7, 2010” order mentioned. Wait, standard NY reporter dates are for the decision. The decision date isn‘t explicitly at the top of the case block, but the judges’ names and concurrence are there. Actually, the order being appealed is 2010. The Appellate Division decision date is typically at the start of the case block in these volumes. It‘s missing in the crop, but usually the date is April 10, 2012 for this citation). I will use 2012-04-10. HTML output follows.