Djeddah v Williams
2013 NY Slip Op 01219 [103 AD3d 579]
February 26, 2013
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 27, 2013


Richard Djeddah, Plaintiff, and Rachel Djeddah, Appellant,
v
Daniel Turk Williams, Respondent.

[*1] Rachel Djeddah, appellant pro se.

Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, New York (Janine L. Peress of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 24, 2011, which denied plaintiff Rachel Djeddah's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if plaintiff received treatment from defendant, any such treatment ceased in or around June 1994. The limitations periods for the claims plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint expired long ago (see CPLR 214-a [medical malpractice], 215 [3] [defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress]). The "relation back" doctrine does not avail plaintiff because her original pleading asserted only a loss of consortium claim (see 83 AD3d 590 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 203 [f]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31711(U).]