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

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 439 (Britton v. Garson) 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

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

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]*440Ordered 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]*440Ordered 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 439, 692 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britton-v-garson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack