Banks v. Hanson Place Dental Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banks v. Hanson Place Dental Associates

242 A.D.2d 646, 664 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 646 (Banks v. Hanson Place Dental Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banks v. Hanson Place Dental Associates, 242 A.D.2d 646, 664 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, (1) the defendants Renrick Benn and Alan Weiner separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated September 4, 1996, as denied their respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as it was asserted against them, and (2) the defendant Albert Rabizadeh appeals from so much of the same order as granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike his first affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the first affirmative defense of the defendant Albert Rabizadeh; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are questions of fact as to whether the defendants were “united in interest” (see, Ruane v Cooper, 127 AD2d 524; [647]*647Lanza v Parkeast Hosp., 102 AD2d 741). Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant Albert Rabizadeh’s first affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, (1) the defendants Renrick Benn and Alan Weiner separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated September 4, 1996, as denied their respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as it was asserted against them, and (2) the defendant Albert Rabizadeh appeals from so much of the same order as granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike his first affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the first affirmative defense of the defendant Albert Rabizadeh; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are questions of fact as to whether the defendants were “united in interest” (see, Ruane v Cooper, 127 AD2d 524; [647]*647Lanza v Parkeast Hosp., 102 AD2d 741). Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant Albert Rabizadeh’s first affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 646, 664 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-hanson-place-dental-associates-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack