Ennd v. Kopp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ennd v. Kopp

48 A.D.3d 740, 851 N.Y.S.2d 372

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 740 (Ennd v. Kopp) 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

Ennd v. Kopp, 48 A.D.3d 740, 851 N.Y.S.2d 372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated April 18, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established, through competent evidence, their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Posokhov v [741]*741Oselkin, 44 AD3d 921 [2007]; Starr v Rogers, 44 AD3d 646, 648 [2007]; see also Tessier v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 177 AD2d 626 [1991]). In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs undisclosed expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it contained only conclusory and unsupported allegations (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Posokhov v Oselkin, 44 AD3d 921 [2007]; Starr v Rogers, 44 AD3d at 648; Keevan v Rifkin, 41 AD3d 661, 662 [2007]; Bumbaca v Bonanno, 39 AD3d 577, 578-579 [2007]; Cai Qiang Li v Yang, 36 AD3d 642 [2007]; Bowman v Chasky, 30 AD3d 552, 553 [2006]; cf. Rivera v Anilesh, 8 NY3d 627 [2007]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated April 18, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established, through competent evidence, their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Posokhov v [741]*741Oselkin, 44 AD3d 921 [2007]; Starr v Rogers, 44 AD3d 646, 648 [2007]; see also Tessier v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 177 AD2d 626 [1991]). In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs undisclosed expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it contained only conclusory and unsupported allegations (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Posokhov v Oselkin, 44 AD3d 921 [2007]; Starr v Rogers, 44 AD3d at 648; Keevan v Rifkin, 41 AD3d 661, 662 [2007]; Bumbaca v Bonanno, 39 AD3d 577, 578-579 [2007]; Cai Qiang Li v Yang, 36 AD3d 642 [2007]; Bowman v Chasky, 30 AD3d 552, 553 [2006]; cf. Rivera v Anilesh, 8 NY3d 627 [2007]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 740, 851 N.Y.S.2d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ennd-v-kopp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack