Robinson-Reese v. Kopp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson-Reese v. Kopp

62 A.D.3d 980, 878 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedMay 26, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 980 (Robinson-Reese v. Kopp) 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

Robinson-Reese v. Kopp, 62 A.D.3d 980, 878 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated October 16, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the conflicting opinions of the defendants’ and the plaintiffs experts (see Roca v Perel, 51 AD3d 757 [2008]; Bengston v Wang, 41 AD3d 625 [2007]; Graham v Mitchell, 37 AD3d 408 [2007]; Feinberg v Feit, 23 AD3d 517, 518 [2005]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated October 16, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the conflicting opinions of the defendants’ and the plaintiffs experts (see Roca v Perel, 51 AD3d 757 [2008]; Bengston v Wang, 41 AD3d 625 [2007]; Graham v Mitchell, 37 AD3d 408 [2007]; Feinberg v Feit, 23 AD3d 517, 518 [2005]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 980, 878 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-reese-v-kopp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack