| Semenza v Lilly's Nails |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02224 [116 AD3d 409] |
| April 1, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Christine Semenza et al., Respondents, v Lilly's Nails, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Stephen S. Hansen, New Rochelle, for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered June 19, 2013, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
On January 9, 2010, plaintiff, Christine Semenza, allegedly sustained a cut to her foot during a pedicure at defendant's salon. Plaintiff sought treatment from several medical providers, and retained an attorney who wrote a letter to defendant on or about February 5, 2010 asserting that she had a claim against it for injuries. However, plaintiff claims she did not learn what caused her pain until March 17, 2010, when an orthopedist found a sliver of a razor embedded in her foot. Plaintiff commenced an action on February 18, 2013, more than three years after the incident.
The action is time-barred (see CPLR 214). Plaintiff may not avail herself of the tolling provision of CPLR 214-c (2), as the "types of substances intended to be covered [by that section] are toxic substances" (Blanco v American Tel. & Tel. Co., 90 NY2d 757, 767 [1997]). A razor is not a "substance" within the meaning of the statute.
In any event, the action is untimely even if CPLR 214-c (2) applies, as plaintiff was aware [*2]of the "primary condition" for which she seeks damages more than three years before the commencement of the action, when she went to doctors and retained an attorney (Whitney v Quaker Chem. Corp., 90 NY2d 845, 847 [1997]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.