Vann v. Rothenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vann v. Rothenberg

18 A.D.3d 288, 795 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5265

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

DecidedMay 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 288 (Vann v. Rothenberg) 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

Vann v. Rothenberg, 18 A.D.3d 288, 795 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 28, 2004, which, after a directed jury verdict, dismissed her dental malpractice action for failure to comply with defendants’ demand for expert witness disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who sustained serious personal injuries allegedly due to dental malpractice committed by defendants, failed to respond to defendants’ request for an expert witness exchange pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests (Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538, 539 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 703 [1995]). Nothing disclosed by plaintiff indicated what the alleged deviation from accepted dental practice was. It was not incumbent upon defendant to divine what the deviation was, as plaintiff argues. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 28, 2004, which, after a directed jury verdict, dismissed her dental malpractice action for failure to comply with defendants’ demand for expert witness disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who sustained serious personal injuries allegedly due to dental malpractice committed by defendants, failed to respond to defendants’ request for an expert witness exchange pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests (Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538, 539 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 703 [1995]). Nothing disclosed by plaintiff indicated what the alleged deviation from accepted dental practice was. It was not incumbent upon defendant to divine what the deviation was, as plaintiff argues. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 288, 795 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vann-v-rothenberg-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack