Marmol v. Green, 7 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Marmol v. Green, 7 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Piro v. Macura
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the fact that the plaintiff consulted another doctor for treatment of the same condition “ ‘does not necessarily establish that he lost his continuing trust and confidence in the defendant’ ” (Piro v Macura, 58 AD3d at 709 , quoting Marmol v Green, 7 AD3d 682, 682 [2004] [some internal quotation marks omitted]; see Richardson v Orentreich, 64 NY2d 896, 898 [1985]), especially since the plaintiff continued to visit the defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gomez v. Katz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
At the other end of the interim treatment spectrum, there are cases which hold that a patient’s consultation with a new physician does not necessarily evince an intention, in and of itself, to terminate a continuous treating relationship with the original physician (see Rudolph v Jerry Lynn, D.D.S., P.C., 16 AD 3d 261, 262-263 [2005]; Marmol v Green, 7 AD3d 682, 682-683 [2004]; Melup v Morrissey, 3 AD3d 391, 392 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'Donnell v. Siegel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Although the Second Department has held that “the continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable where the interval of time between visits or treatments exceeds the applicable period of limitations” (Marmol v Green, 7 AD3d 682, 682 [2004], quoting Grellet v City of New York, 118 AD2d 141, 149 [2d Dept 1986]), that rule is contrary to the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement in Massie and is not followed in the other Departments (see e.g.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward Marmol
v.
Steven Green, and Ernest H. Kirchman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 17, 2004.
7 A.D.3d 682
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Ernest Henry Kirchman, and New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated April 22, 2003, as, in effect, upon converting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to a motion for summary judgment, denied that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Ernest Henry Kirchman and dismissing all claims except those claims arising out of the defendant Steven Green’s treatment of the plaintiff insofar as asserted against New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although the appellants demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged malpractice occurred over a substantial period of time before the plaintiff served the notice of claim, and although “it is the rule in the Second Department that the continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable where the interval of time between visits or treatments exceeds the applicable period of limitations” (Grellet v City of New York, 118 AD2d 141, 149 [1986]), the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to the interval of time between visits in the instant case (see generally Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151 [1962]; Doyaga v Columbia-Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 307 AD2d 333, 334 [2003]).

Moreover, the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that a question exists regarding whether the parties considered that the plaintiffs treatment by the defendants was complete (see McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 405 [1982]). The fact that the plaintiff consulted other physicians at the same time that he was treated by the defendants does not necessarily establish that he lost his “continuing trust and confidence” (Richardson v Orentreich, 64 NY2d 896, 898 [1985]) in the defendants, espe[*683] dally since the defendant Ernest Henry Kirchman encouraged the plaintiff to seek additional opinions, and the plaintiff testified that he only consulted other physicians to obtain documentation for his workers’ compensation claim. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.