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
Where a Client’s Claims Against an Attorney Arise from the Attorney’s Providing Legal Services Which Are Related In Part to the Attorney’s Business Enterprise, the “Business Enterprise” Coverage Exclusions In the Legal Malpractice Insurance Policy Are Triggered
PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
Safety Device Requirement in Industrial Code Was Specific Enough to Support Labor Law 241(6) Action Based Upon the Absence of a Safety Guard on a Tile Grinder
PLAINTIFF-RELATOR BROUGHT A QUI TAM ACTION (ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT) AGAINST A BANK ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE QUI TAM ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; EVEN THOUGH THE CITY SETTLED WITH THE BANK IN A RELATED ACTION, PLAINTIFF-RELATOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE FELL OVER A WORKER WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OFF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
HERE DEFENDANT ASHKENAZY’S COUNSEL TOOK POSITIONS WHICH WERE BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE DISAGREED WITH THE INTERPRETATION DID NOT WARRANT A FINDING COUNSEL ENGAGED IN FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT OR ACTED IN BAD FAITH; THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WAS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD KNEW OF THE DOG’S PRESENCE IN THE BUILDING AND WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE.

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...