CHARALAMBAKIS v. CITY OF NEW YORK


46 N.Y.2d 785 (1978)

John Charalambakis, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Anastasia Charalambakis, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided December 20, 1978.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Bernard Burstein and Laurence B. Jones of counsel), for appellant.

Michael Dubow for respondent.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs.

Generally, a notice of claim against a municipality must be filed "within ninety days after the claim arises" (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 1). Under the law as it existed when the claim arose in this case, where a claimant because of infancy failed to serve a timely notice of claim, the court, in its discretion, could grant leave to file a late notice of claim (see Matter of Beary v City of Rye, 44 N.Y.2d 398). The application for leave to so file had to be made "within the period of one year after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based." (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 5, as amd by L 1976, ch 745.) In this case the application was concededly not made within this period.

It is argued, however, that the infant was undergoing "continuous treatment" during the period of her visits to the hospital, and therefore that the one-year statutory period did not begin to run until September 25, 1974, the date of her last hospital visit. But the continuous treatment doctrine is applicable only "when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint" (Borgia v City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155). Here, since the infant's visits to the hospital were, so far as averred, merely for routine pediatric examinations, the infant appearing during this period to be in perfect health, the continuous treatment doctrine should not be applied (Davis v City of New York, 38 N.Y.2d 257).

Order reversed, with costs, and the application to file a late notice of claim denied in a memorandum.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases