Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Raut v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
Citations: 2016 NY Slip Op 8891; 145 A.D.3d 1049; 44 N.Y.S.3d 479Docket: 2014-10335
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 27, 2016; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Raut v. New York City Health. Hosps. Corp., the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision denying the plaintiff's motion to serve a late notice of claim for medical malpractice against Elmhurst Hospital Center, while granting the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff, who was born prematurely at the hospital in August 2011 and suffered related injuries, alleged that negligent prenatal care led to his condition. A notice of claim was served in March 2014, but the plaintiff sought to have it deemed timely or to serve a late notice. The court evaluated factors including the hospital's actual knowledge of the claim, potential prejudice to the hospital's defense, the plaintiff's status as an infant, and any reasonable excuse for the delay. The court found that the plaintiff did not show the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, which was a significant factor in their decision. Actual knowledge of essential facts requires pertinent records to indicate injury linked to alleged malpractice. In this case, while the medical records noted the mother's asymptomatic cervical polyp and friable cervix during pregnancy, they did not establish that the plaintiff's preterm delivery was caused by the Hospital's alleged malpractice. The records failed to inform the Hospital of the facts underlying the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the delay in serving the notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the Hospital's defense, particularly given the lapse of time and the fact that three of the mother's eight treating physicians were no longer employed by the Hospital. The plaintiff also did not provide a sufficient excuse for the untimely notice, which could not be justified by the plaintiff's infancy and was deemed unreasonable. Thus, the Supreme Court acted appropriately in denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the Hospital's cross motion.