Padovani v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padovani v. Miller

27 A.D.3d 632, 810 N.Y.S.2d 669

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 632 (Padovani v. Miller) 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

Padovani v. Miller, 27 A.D.3d 632, 810 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendants Gerald E. Miller and Gerald E. Miller, P.C., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 1, 2005, as denied their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

That branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment was properly denied in view of the existence of triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Yelin v American Dental Ctr., 184 AD2d 693 [1992]). Further, we find no error in the Supreme Court’s refusal to hold a Frye hearing (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]; cf. People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 422, 423 [1994]; Del Maestro v Grecco, 16 AD3d 364 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Dillon, 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 defendants Gerald E. Miller and Gerald E. Miller, P.C., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 1, 2005, as denied their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

That branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment was properly denied in view of the existence of triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Yelin v American Dental Ctr., 184 AD2d 693 [1992]). Further, we find no error in the Supreme Court’s refusal to hold a Frye hearing (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]; cf. People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 422, 423 [1994]; Del Maestro v Grecco, 16 AD3d 364 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 632, 810 N.Y.S.2d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padovani-v-miller-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack