Provenzano v. Becall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Provenzano v. Becall

138 A.D.2d 585, 526 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 138 A.D.2d 585 (Provenzano v. Becall) 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

Provenzano v. Becall, 138 A.D.2d 585, 526 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff Lorayne Provenzano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 6, 1987, which denied her motion to strike the defense of the Statute of Limitations from the defendant’s answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is now clear that intentionally implanted devices, in this case silver point wires permanently fixed in various areas of the plaintiff’s mouth during the course of root-canal therapy, cannot be considered "foreign objects” within the meaning of CPLR 214-a (cf., Goldsmith v Howmedica, Inc., 67 NY2d 120, 122, n 3; see, Lombardi v DeLuca, 130 AD2d 632, lv granted 70 NY2d 612; Mitchell v Abitol, 130 AD2d 633). Therefore, the plaintiff’s contention that, because the wires in or underneath two teeth improperly extruded into soft gum tissue, these wires became "foreign objects” which "contributed” to the deterioration of the plaintiff’s mouth but which were allegedly not discovered until six years after completion of treatment is without merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense. Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, 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 plaintiff Lorayne Provenzano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 6, 1987, which denied her motion to strike the defense of the Statute of Limitations from the defendant’s answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is now clear that intentionally implanted devices, in this case silver point wires permanently fixed in various areas of the plaintiff’s mouth during the course of root-canal therapy, cannot be considered "foreign objects” within the meaning of CPLR 214-a (cf., Goldsmith v Howmedica, Inc., 67 NY2d 120, 122, n 3; see, Lombardi v DeLuca, 130 AD2d 632, lv granted 70 NY2d 612; Mitchell v Abitol, 130 AD2d 633). Therefore, the plaintiff’s contention that, because the wires in or underneath two teeth improperly extruded into soft gum tissue, these wires became "foreign objects” which "contributed” to the deterioration of the plaintiff’s mouth but which were allegedly not discovered until six years after completion of treatment is without merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense. Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 585, 526 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provenzano-v-becall-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack