Landau v. Salzman

129 A.D.2d 774, 514 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45469
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 27, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 774 (Landau v. Salzman) 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
Landau v. Salzman, 129 A.D.2d 774, 514 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 29, 1986, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof which denied those branches of the motion which were for partial summary judgment dismissing the claims for malpractice allegedly occurring more than three years prior to the commencement of the action, and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.

The defendant’s documentary and other proof demonstrates his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing certain of the plaintiffs’ claims as time barred (see, CPLR 214). It then became the plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate by admissible evidence that a factual issue existed (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). We find that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply in this matter as the plaintiff Vivian Landau’s visits to the defendant were merely for routine dental examinations (see, Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151). Therefore, CPLR 214 requires that those acts of malpractice alleged to have been committed more than three years prior to the commencement of this action must be dismissed as time barred.

We also note that the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment was insufficient as there was no affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts, merely the plaintiff’s attorneys’ affirmation (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Rubin, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur. .

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

Related

Fade v. Pugliani/Fade
8 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Grippi v. Jankunas
230 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Ganess v. City of New York
207 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Yelin v. American Dental Center
184 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Massie v. Crawford
160 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Hoch v. Paloger
150 A.D.2d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Wehle v. Giovanniello
137 A.D.2d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Flynn v. Carone
134 A.D.2d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 A.D.2d 774, 514 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landau-v-salzman-nyappdiv-1987.