Hedvat v. Klein

77 Misc. 3d 129(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 51152(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: November 22, 2022
• Docket: 570041/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Hedvat v Klein (2022 NY Slip Op 51152(U)) [*1]

Hedvat v Klein

2022 NY Slip Op 51152(U) [77 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on November 22, 2022

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 22, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570041/19

Ephraim Hedvat, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Bernard Klein, D.D.S., Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated December 6, 2018, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated December 6, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in this dental malpractice action. Defendant met his prima facie burden by demonstrating that he "did not depart from good and accepted dental practices" in treating the plaintiff (Hartt v Kramer, 155 AD3d 560 [2017]), or, if there was such a departure, that it was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Kozlowski v Oana, 102 AD3d 751, 752-753 [2013]). Once the defendant met this burden, plaintiff was obligated to rebut defendant's prima facie showing with competent evidence demonstrating that the defendant departed from accepted dental practice (see Biondi v Behrman, 149 AD3d 562, 563 [2017], lv dismissed and denied 30 NY3d 1012 [2017]). Here, plaintiff's general allegations of dental malpractice, which were conclusory and unsupported by competent medical evidence, were insufficient to defeat defendant's motion (see Masucci v Feder, 196 AD2d 416, 420 [1993]). Nor did plaintiff establish that any discovery allegedly still outstanding "might lead to facts that would support [his] opposition to the motion" (Laporta v PPC Commercial, LLC, 204 AD3d 538, 539 [2022]).

We have examined plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: November 22, 2022