Pollatos v. Glasser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pollatos v. Glasser

255 A.D.2d 305, 679 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11586

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 305 (Pollatos v. Glasser) 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

Pollatos v. Glasser, 255 A.D.2d 305, 679 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant William A. Walker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated December 4, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the conflicting expert affidavits submitted by the parties, the Supreme Court properly concluded that triable questions of fact exist as to the alleged negligence of the appellant (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404; Pirrelli v Long Is. R. R., 226 AD2d 166; Napierski v Finn, 229 AD2d 869; Menekou v Crean, 222 AD2d 418; Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 489). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and McGinity, 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 William A. Walker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated December 4, 1997, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the conflicting expert affidavits submitted by the parties, the Supreme Court properly concluded that triable questions of fact exist as to the alleged negligence of the appellant (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404; Pirrelli v Long Is. R. R., 226 AD2d 166; Napierski v Finn, 229 AD2d 869; Menekou v Crean, 222 AD2d 418; Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 489). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 305, 679 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollatos-v-glasser-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack