Ragusa v. Winter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ragusa v. Winter

28 A.D.3d 313, 813 N.Y.S.2d 410

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

DecidedApril 13, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 313 (Ragusa v. Winter) 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

Ragusa v. Winter, 28 A.D.3d 313, 813 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 20, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing as time-barred plaintiffs dental malpractice claims insofar as they are premised on treatment occurring on or before December 15, 2000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action in July 2003. Defendant began treating plaintiff in December 1997 for upper maxillary dental implants. Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether that treatment, in the course of which the alleged malpractice occurred, continued within the statutory period. According to plaintiff, the implant process was still ongoing in October 2002, through which time she continued to consult defendant respecting pain and discomfort from the implants (see Denlea v Hanswirth, 303 AD2d 711 [2003]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 20, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing as time-barred plaintiffs dental malpractice claims insofar as they are premised on treatment occurring on or before December 15, 2000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action in July 2003. Defendant began treating plaintiff in December 1997 for upper maxillary dental implants. Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether that treatment, in the course of which the alleged malpractice occurred, continued within the statutory period. According to plaintiff, the implant process was still ongoing in October 2002, through which time she continued to consult defendant respecting pain and discomfort from the implants (see Denlea v Hanswirth, 303 AD2d 711 [2003]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 313, 813 N.Y.S.2d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragusa-v-winter-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack