You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address the plaintiff’s dental malpractice claim with respect to one tooth (tooth number 28). Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on that claim:

Even assuming, as defendant claims, that plaintiff would still have had to undergo future dental work had these six teeth been saved, and that any disfigurement was not fairly attributable to defendant because plaintiff opted to have another dentist install her dentures, these facts do not negate the primary injury claimed by plaintiff — the unnecessary loss of these teeth. It is immaterial that plaintiff’s expert did not indicate that he or she had reviewed plaintiff or her husband’s deposition testimony, as review of these documents was not necessary to make an informed determination about the appropriateness of treatment. * * *

However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted insofar as plaintiff’s claims are directed at tooth number 28, because plaintiff’s expert failed to raise an issue of fact regarding a departure of care with respect to this tooth. Castro v Yakobashvilli, 2020 NY Slip Op 05281, First Dept 10-1-20

 

You might also like
CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Ladder Which “Kicked Out” from Under Plaintiff Entitled Plaintiff to Partial Summary Judgment/Replacement of Cracked Glass Constituted Covered “Repair” Not Routine Maintenance
PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA) AND NEW YORK CITY’S RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL), THE TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO BUT WAS NEVER OFFERED A RENEWAL LEASE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PRIOR LEASE SIGNED BY HIS GRANDMOTHER; THE LANDLORD’S HOLDOVER AND EVICTION PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.
Questions of Fact Existed About Whether Mortgage Lender Was Aware of Underlying “Foreclosure Rescue Scam”
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING REBAR, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE REBAR FALLING; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE REBAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED SUCH THAT IT WOULD NOT FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
NYC Fire Department Cannot Be Compelled to Bargain Over the “Zero Tolerance” Drug-Test Policy for EMS Personnel

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE;... A NOTICE OF LIEN CAN NOT BE DISCHARGED ABSENT A TRIAL IF IT IS VALID ON ITS...