Cresson v. New York University College of Dentistry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cresson v. New York University College of Dentistry

45 A.D.3d 352, 845 N.Y.S.2d 277

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 352 (Cresson v. New York University College of Dentistry) 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

Cresson v. New York University College of Dentistry, 45 A.D.3d 352, 845 N.Y.S.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered May 22, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it was commenced beyond the 21/2-year statute of limitations for an action alleging dental malpractice was appropriate (CPLR 214-a). Defendant established through documentary evidence that following plaintiffs last scheduled appointment on March 4, 2003, it placed plaintiff on notice of its decision to discontinue treating her and that she was to pursue outside consultation for her orthodontic complaints, and there is no basis upon which to find that defendant anticipated providing further orthodontic services to plaintiff (see Plummer v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 98 NY2d 263, 267-268 [2002]). Accordingly, the commencement of this action on September 28, 2005 was untimely. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered May 22, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it was commenced beyond the 21/2-year statute of limitations for an action alleging dental malpractice was appropriate (CPLR 214-a). Defendant established through documentary evidence that following plaintiffs last scheduled appointment on March 4, 2003, it placed plaintiff on notice of its decision to discontinue treating her and that she was to pursue outside consultation for her orthodontic complaints, and there is no basis upon which to find that defendant anticipated providing further orthodontic services to plaintiff (see Plummer v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 98 NY2d 263, 267-268 [2002]). Accordingly, the commencement of this action on September 28, 2005 was untimely. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 352, 845 N.Y.S.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cresson-v-new-york-university-college-of-dentistry-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack