Silver v. Apfel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silver v. Apfel

286 A.D.2d 725, 730 N.Y.S.2d 456, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8559

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 725 (Silver v. Apfel) 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

Silver v. Apfel, 286 A.D.2d 725, 730 N.Y.S.2d 456, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated April 2, 2001, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action arising from his treatment of the plaintiff which occurred before March 24, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is a factual issue as to whether the defendant provided a continuous course of treatment for the specific condition which gave rise to the instant action (see, CPLR 214-a; Busti-O’Leary v Mancuso, 258 AD2d 549; Lee v Goldman, 255 AD2d 366). Thus, the defendant is not entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action arising from his treatment of the plaintiff which occurred before March 24, 1997. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated April 2, 2001, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action arising from his treatment of the plaintiff which occurred before March 24, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is a factual issue as to whether the defendant provided a continuous course of treatment for the specific condition which gave rise to the instant action (see, CPLR 214-a; Busti-O’Leary v Mancuso, 258 AD2d 549; Lee v Goldman, 255 AD2d 366). Thus, the defendant is not entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the causes of action arising from his treatment of the plaintiff which occurred before March 24, 1997. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 725, 730 N.Y.S.2d 456, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-v-apfel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack