The motion court properly struck the amended bill of particulars alleging a failure to diagnose and treat plaintiff's cervical cancer because this claim was not asserted in the complaint, which alleged a failure to diagnose and treat plaintiff's urinary and kidney disease. Although the new claim was not time barred due to the doctrine of continuous treatment (see CPLR 214-a; Porubic v Oberlander,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.