Prigorac v. Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prigorac v. Park

20 A.D.3d 363, 799 N.Y.S.2d 53

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

DecidedJuly 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 363 (Prigorac v. Park) 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

Prigorac v. Park, 20 A.D.3d 363, 799 N.Y.S.2d 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 16, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

In this dental malpractice action arising from a root canal performed by defendant, questions of fact are presented by the experts’ conflicting opinions as to whether defendant departed from the prevailing standard of care and, if so, whether such departure resulted in plaintiffs injuries; and also by the parties’ [364]*364contradictory affidavits as to whether defendant had advised plaintiff of the possible need for retreatment by an orthodontist. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 16, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

In this dental malpractice action arising from a root canal performed by defendant, questions of fact are presented by the experts’ conflicting opinions as to whether defendant departed from the prevailing standard of care and, if so, whether such departure resulted in plaintiffs injuries; and also by the parties’ [364]*364contradictory affidavits as to whether defendant had advised plaintiff of the possible need for retreatment by an orthodontist. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 363, 799 N.Y.S.2d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prigorac-v-park-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack