Burns v. Biondo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burns v. Biondo

300 A.D.2d 426, 750 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 426 (Burns v. Biondo) 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

Burns v. Biondo, 300 A.D.2d 426, 750 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which, upon an order of the same court, dated January 14, 2002, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to her allegations of dental malpractice (see Prete v Rafla-Demetrious, 224 AD2d 674, 675; Rosado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 412) or lack of informed consent (see Public Health Law § 2805-d; Astuto v [427]*427Hogan, 219 AD2d 692; Innucci v Bauersachs, 201 AD2d 460). Thus, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which, upon an order of the same court, dated January 14, 2002, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to her allegations of dental malpractice (see Prete v Rafla-Demetrious, 224 AD2d 674, 675; Rosado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 412) or lack of informed consent (see Public Health Law § 2805-d; Astuto v [427]*427Hogan, 219 AD2d 692; Innucci v Bauersachs, 201 AD2d 460). Thus, the defendants were properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 426, 750 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-biondo-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack