Does the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations for plaintiff's claims?

Despite plaintiff's contention to the contrary, defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing plaintiffs' claims to the extent they are based upon acts and omissions that occurred before October 11, 2005 because plaintiff commenced this action on April 11, 2008, more than two years and six months after those acts and omissions took place (O'Donnell v. Siegel, 49 AD3d 415). Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the continuous treatment doctrine

Page 7

tolled the statute of limitations for those claims. She has failed to meet this burden.