Britton v. Garson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Britton v. Garson

262 A.D.2d 439, 692 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6640

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 14, 1999·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In a dental malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), dated July 6, 1998, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for partial summary judgment dismissing all claims based on acts of negligence occurring prior to June 22, 1993.

[440] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

During the period in question, the defendant neither diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from periodontal disease nor undertook to treat her for that alleged condition. As a result, the Supreme Court properly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the Statute of Limitations applicable to the plaintiffs dental malpractice claim, which was based on that alleged condition (see, Pietromonaco v Schwartzman, 259 AD2d 474; Chesrow v Galiani, 234 AD2d 9; Johansen v Ozer, 223 AD2d 412; Iazzetta v Vicenzi, 200 AD2d 209). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a dental malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), dated July 6, 1998, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for partial summary judgment dismissing all claims based on acts of negligence occurring prior to June 22, 1993.

[440] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

During the period in question, the defendant neither diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from periodontal disease nor undertook to treat her for that alleged condition. As a result, the Supreme Court properly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the Statute of Limitations applicable to the plaintiffs dental malpractice claim, which was based on that alleged condition (see, Pietromonaco v Schwartzman, 259 AD2d 474; Chesrow v Galiani, 234 AD2d 9; Johansen v Ozer, 223 AD2d 412; Iazzetta v Vicenzi, 200 AD2d 209). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Britton v. Garson, 262 A.D.2d 439, 692 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 439 (Britton v. Garson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related