DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs' contention that the action sounded in simple negligence rather than medical malpractice, and is therefore subject to the three-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 214, is without merit. In determining whether an action sounds in medical malpractice or in simple negligence for purposes of determining the applicable Statute of Limitations, the critical factor is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant is alleged to have breached. When the duty arises from the physician-patient relationship or is substantially related to medical treatment, the breach gives rise to an action sounding in medical malpractice, not simple negligence (see, Lippert v. Yambo, 267 A.D.2d 433 [2d Dept., Dec. 27, 1999]; Chaff v. Parkway Hosp., 205 A.D.2d 571 ). The incident complained of here arose from the physician-patient relationship and was substantially related to medical treatment. In addition, since the cause of action accrued at the time of the commission of the alleged malpractice, the Supreme Court properly determined that the action was barred by the two-year and six-month Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a).