Staley v. LaFornara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Staley v. LaFornara

294 A.D.2d 876, 741 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4606

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

DecidedMay 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 876 (Staley v. LaFornara) 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

Staley v. LaFornara, 294 A.D.2d 876, 741 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered September 28, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this dental malpractice action. Although defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of appropriate treatment and causation, plaintiffs raised triable questions of fact on those issues, thus warranting the denial of defendant’s motion (see Puntino v Chin, 288 AD2d 202, 203; Heller v Lublin, 281 AD2d 393; Boz v Berger, 268 AD2d 453; Ballatore v Verini, 255 AD2d 472). Present—Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered September 28, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this dental malpractice action. Although defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of appropriate treatment and causation, plaintiffs raised triable questions of fact on those issues, thus warranting the denial of defendant’s motion (see Puntino v Chin, 288 AD2d 202, 203; Heller v Lublin, 281 AD2d 393; Boz v Berger, 268 AD2d 453; Ballatore v Verini, 255 AD2d 472). Present—Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 876, 741 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-lafornara-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack