While the instant alleged medical malpractice occurred prior to the effective date of the 1975 amendment to CPLR 214 and creation of CPLR 214-a, the intent of the Legislature in enacting said CPLR 214-a is significant in determining whether an IUD, which was allegedly negligently left in plaintiff, constitutes a "foreign object" for purposes of the discovery exception to the relevant Statute of Limitations under the principles set forth in the pre-amendment case of Flanagan v Mount Eden Gen. Hosp. ( 24 N.Y.2d 427; see, Cooper v Edinbergh, 75 A.D.2d 757). As we held in Rodriguez v Manhattan Med. Group ( 155 A.D.2d 114, 115, affd 77 N.Y.2d 217) a "fixation device," such as an IUD, is not transformed into a "foreign object" when a physician fails to remove it after being retained to do so. (See also, Rockefeller v Moront, 81 N.Y.2d 560, 565.)
We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.