Source: https://diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/1990-des-case-clark-v-abbott-labs/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:13:51+00:00

Document:
1990 DES Case: Clark v. Abbott Labs.
” The issue on this appeal is whether the one-year time period for commencement of actions under the toxic tort revival statute (L 1986, ch 682, § 4) is a Statute of Limitations or a condition precedent. We hold that the time period is a Statute of Limitations and that the period may be extended by compliance with CPLR 203 (b) (5).
Plaintiff Kathleen Clark was born in 1958. She allegedly sustained serious personal injuries by reason of her in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES). This action was commenced against 11 manufacturers of DES by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to the Broome County Sheriff on July 29, 1987, and by personal service upon all of the defendants on either September 18 or 23, 1987. Following joinder of issue, several defendants moved and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon numerous grounds, most of which have been resolved by the Court of Appeals decision in Hymowitz v Lilly & Co.. This appeal is from an order denying defendants’ application for summary judgment on the ground that delivery to the Sheriff did not extend the time period set forth in the revival statute.
CLARK v. ABBOTT LABS., Leagle, 1990190155AD2d35_1185, March 22, 1990.
… continue reading the full paper CLARK v. ABBOTT LABS., on Leagle.
Previous PostPrevious 1990 DES Case: Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Next PostNext 1990 DES Case: Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.

References: v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.