Dugan v. Schering Corp., 658 N.E.2d 1037 (NY 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Dugan v. Schering Corp., 658 N.E.2d 1037 (NY 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Newell Co. v. Petersen (illappct, 2001-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vuksanovich
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Triarc Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 525, 529 (1999))); Dugan v. Schering Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 857, 635 (1995) (claims sounding in negligence or product liability accrue in the state where the injury occurs).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newell Co. v. Petersen (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Biewend v. Biewend, 17 Cal. 2d 108, 115 , 109 P.2d 701, 706 (1941); Miller v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 99 Idaho 299, 300 , 581 P.2d 345, 346-47 (1978); Dugan v. Schering Corp., 635 N.Y.S.2d 164, 164 , 658 N.E.2d 1037, 1037 (1995); Glynn v. Stoneville Furniture Co., 85 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newell Co. v. Petersen
Ill. App. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
See, e.g. , Biewend v. Biewend , 17 Cal. 2d 108, 115 , 109 P.2d 701, 706 (1941); Miller v. Stauffer Chemical Co. , 99 Idaho 299, 300 , 581 P.2d 345, 346-47 (1978); Dugan v. Schering Corp. , 635 N.Y.S.2d 164, 164 , 658 N.E.2d 1037, 1037 (1995); Glynn v. Stoneville Furniture Co. , 85 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tullis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See, e .g., Miller v. Stauffer, 581 P.2d at 346-47 (noting Idaho borrowing statute exception for one “who has been a citizen of this state” interpreted to mean when the cause of action accrues, not at the time of filing suit); Biewend v. Biewend, 17 Cal.2d 108, 114 , 109 P.2d 701, 705 (1941) (interpreting California borrowing statute not to apply if plaintiff was California resident at time cause of action accrued); Dugan v. Sobering, 86 N.Y.2d 857 , 685 N.Y.S.2d 164, 164 , 658 N.E.2d 1037, 1037 (1995) (holding “exception” to New York borrowing statute for local residents applicable on…
cited Cited "see" Leib-Podry v. Gates III
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dugan v. Schering Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 857, 859 (1995) (citing N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Sutton v. Tapscott
2d Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dugan v. Schering Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 857, 859 (1995) (clarifying that section 202 refers to plaintiff’s residency at the time the cause of action accrued); see also S.H. v. Diocese of Brooklyn, 167 N.Y.S.3d 171 , 183 (2d Dep’t 2022) ( “[T]here is no reference to CPLR 202 in CPLR 214-g, nor is there any indication that CPLR 214-g was intended to override the provisions of CPLR 202.”).
examined Cited "see" Stuart v. American Cyanamid Company (3×)
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dugan v. Schering Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 857 , 635 N.Y.S.2d 164, 165 , 658 N.E.2d 1037 (N.Y.1995); Besser v. E.R.
examined Cited "see" Stuart ex rel. Craven v. American Cyanamid Co. (3×)
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dugan v. Schering Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 857 , 635 N.Y.S.2d 164, 165 , 658 N.E.2d 1037 (N.Y.1995); Besser v. E.R.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Golod v. Hoffman La Roche (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Dugan v. Schering Corp., 210 A.D.2d 974, 974 , 620 N.Y.S.2d 689 , 690 (4th Dep’t 1994) (rejecting *852 plaintiff’s assertion that bladder cancer diagnosed in 1990 was separate injury from earlier occurrence of bladder cancer diagnosed in 1976), aff'd, 86 N.Y.2d 857 , 635 N.Y.S.2d 164 , 658 N.E.2d 1037 (1995); Sweeney v. General Printing Inc., 210 A.D.2d 865, 865-66 , 621 N.Y.S.2d 132 , .133 (1994), Humphreys, 949 F.Supp. at 1020 .
Mark Dugan, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Kimberly D. Dugan, Deceased, Appellant,
v.
Schering Corporation Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 24, 1995.
658 N.E.2d 1037
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Ronald R. Benjamin, Binghamton, for appellant., Henry R. Simon, White Plains (Linda Trummer-Napolitano of counsel), for respondents.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Levine and Ciparick Concur Judges Bellacosa and Smith Taking No Part.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Plaintiffs decedent was born in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 1956. Decedent’s mother took dienestrol, a synthetic estro[*859] gen drug, while she was pregnant with decedent. In 1976, decedent was diagnosed with clear cell adenocarcinoma of the cervix and sustained a radical hysterectomy. No lawsuit was commenced at that time. Decedent moved to New York shortly after the surgery and remained disease-free until 1990, when it was discovered that she had clear cell adenocarcinoma metastatic from the primary cervical cancer, which caused her death in January 1991. Plaintiff husband, individually and as representative of decedent’s estate, commenced this action against defendants manufacturers of dienestrol.

The cause of action accrued in North Carolina, where decedent was exposed in útero to dienestrol in 1955 and diagnosed with cancer related to that exposure in 1976 (see, Fleishman v Lilly & Co., 62 NY2d 888). Because decedent was not a resident of New York at the time the cause of action accrued, CPLR 202, the so-called “borrowing” statute, requires dismissal of this suit unless it is timely under the Statute of Limitations of both New York and North Carolina (see, Antone v General Motors Corp. (64 NY2d 20, 28). The Appellate Division correctly concluded that this action, which was commenced in 1992, is time-barred under both New York and North Carolina law. Plaintiff’s assertion that the cancer diagnosed in 1990 was a separate injury for Statute of Limitations purposes was properly rejected (see, Consorti v Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp., 86 NY2d 449 [decided today]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions were not preserved for review.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Levine and Ciparick concur; Judges Bellacosa and Smith taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.