In Rockefeller v. Moront, 81 N.Y.2d 560 (1993) a misplaced suture was found not to be a foreign object. The Court of Appeals held that in order to determine whether an object is a "foreign object" one must look at the nature of the materials and their intended function. The Court explained: Objects such as surgical clamps, scalpels, and sponges are introduced into the patient's body to serve a temporary medical function for the duration of the surgery, but are normally intended to be removed after the procedure's completion. Clearly, when such objects are left behind, no assessment of the medical professional's expert judgment or discretion in failing to remove them is necessary to establish negligence. By contrast, items are placed in the patient with the intention that they will remain to serve some continuing treatment purpose constitute "fixation devices (Id. at p. 564). The Court of Appeal held that a suture that was improperly affixed to an organ during hernia repair surgery did not constitute a "foreign object" sufficient to delay accrual of New York's statute of limitations for medical malpractice. The court reached this conclusion because items such as sutures "are deliberately introduced into the body and intended to perform the continuing function of securing the surgical closure." (81 N.Y.2d at p. 566.) Noting that objects such as surgical clamps, scalpels and sponges serve a temporary medical function dur-ing the surgery and are normally intended to be removed after the surgery is complete, the court reasoned that "when such objects are left behind, no assessment of the medical professional's expert judgment or discretion in failing to remove them is necessary to establish negligence." (Rockefeller v. Moront, supra, 81 N.Y.2d at p. 564.)