Pahlad v Brustman

Pahlad v Brustman 2007 NY Slip Op 02592 [8 NY3d 901] March 27, 2007 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 16, 2007

[*1] Jenna Lynn Pahlad, an Infant, by the Appointed Guardian of Her Properties, Daniel Berger, et al., Appellants,
v
Lois Brustman, M.D., et al., Respondents.

Decided March 27, 2007

Pahlad v Brustman, 33 AD3d 518, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Benjamin Heinrich, P.C., Bronx (Benjamin Heinrich of counsel), for appellants.

Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York City (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiffs had[*2]"timely awareness of the facts requiring [them] to make further inquiry before the statute of limitations expired," and an equitable estoppel defense to the statute of limitations is therefore "inappropriate as a matter of law" (see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553-554 [2006]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.