Pinkston v. Weiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkston v. Weiss

238 A.D.2d 393, 657 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3843

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

DecidedApril 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 393 (Pinkston v. Weiss) 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

Pinkston v. Weiss, 238 A.D.2d 393, 657 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 22, 1996, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the third affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to address his argument that application of the continuous treatment doctrine should be limited to claims relating to only two of the plaintiff’s teeth, since this issue was raised for the first time in his reply papers (see, Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Morse Shoe Co., 218 AD2d 624; Potter v Blue Shield, 216 AD2d 773).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 22, 1996, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the third affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to address his argument that application of the continuous treatment doctrine should be limited to claims relating to only two of the plaintiff’s teeth, since this issue was raised for the first time in his reply papers (see, Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Morse Shoe Co., 218 AD2d 624; Potter v Blue Shield, 216 AD2d 773).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 393, 657 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkston-v-weiss-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack