Fuksman v. Handler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuksman v. Handler

259 A.D.2d 733, 685 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3166

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 733 (Fuksman v. Handler) 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

Fuksman v. Handler, 259 A.D.2d 733, 685 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated January 21,1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

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

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations was properly denied since there are questions of fact as to when the last treatment occcurred and the purpose of that treatment (see generally, Kimiatek v Post, 240 AD2d 372; Parker v Jankunas, 227 AD2d 537). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated January 21,1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

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

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations was properly denied since there are questions of fact as to when the last treatment occcurred and the purpose of that treatment (see generally, Kimiatek v Post, 240 AD2d 372; Parker v Jankunas, 227 AD2d 537). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 733, 685 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuksman-v-handler-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack