Galecki v. Omnicare Dental

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galecki v. Omnicare Dental

121 A.D.3d 594, 995 N.Y.S.2d 49

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 28, 2014·No. 13324 110771/07·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which granted defendant David Heering D.M.D.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since the alleged malpractice occurred in 2001 and 2002 and the action was not commenced until August 2007, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (see CFLR 214-a). The continuous treatment doctrine does not apply to this case and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations, since Dr. Heering examined plaintiffs mouth on one occasion in January 2006, for reasons unrelated to either of the original conditions for which she was treated in 2001 and 2002, which are the subjects of her *595 complaint as against Heering (see McManus v Lipton, 107 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2013]; Marrone v Klein, 33 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2006]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which granted defendant David Heering D.M.D.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since the alleged malpractice occurred in 2001 and 2002 and the action was not commenced until August 2007, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (see CFLR 214-a). The continuous treatment doctrine does not apply to this case and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations, since Dr. Heering examined plaintiffs mouth on one occasion in January 2006, for reasons unrelated to either of the original conditions for which she was treated in 2001 and 2002, which are the subjects of her *595 complaint as against Heering (see McManus v Lipton, 107 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2013]; Marrone v Klein, 33 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2006]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Galecki v. Omnicare Dental, 121 A.D.3d 594, 995 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

121 A.D.3d 594 (Galecki v. Omnicare Dental) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related