You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS...
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied making this dental malpractice action timely; and (2) plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant dentist (Irlin) should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affirmation of her current treating dentist, who opined that the plaintiff initially sought treatment from Irlin in order to obtain a permanent prosthetic replacement for the missing teeth in her upper jaw. The plaintiff’s dentist further opined that the numerous surgeries that the plaintiff underwent on her upper jaw to repair and replace implants and prostheses were related to Irlin’s initial alleged malpractice in failing to diagnose the bone condition that caused the implants and prostheses to become loose and need replacement. The record otherwise presents questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff timely initiated return visits to complain and seek corrective treatment from Irlin … . …

… [T]he individual defendants’ own submissions, which included the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and numerous signed consent forms written in English, demonstrated that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against Irlin. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she agreed to the installation of dental implants and a permanent prosthetic device in her upper jaw because Irlin verbally promised her that it would “last a lifetime,” that she would “treat [the prosthesis] as if” it was her “own teeth,” and that she would only need follow-up appointments for cleanings once every 6 to 12 months, among other things. The individual defendants’ evidence could support the conclusion that the treatment Irlin rendered did not achieve these allegedly promised results. Chvetsova v Family Smile Dental, 2022 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Severance of Action Against Defendant Which Filed for Bankruptcy Proper
Question of Fact Whether Licensed Driver Properly Supervised Young Driver with a Learner’s Permit
Attorney’s Suit to Recover Fee Dismissed/Failure to Provide Client Notice Re: Right to Arbitrate/Failure to Comply with 22 NYCRR 1215.1
“Notwithstanding Clause” in Contract Insulated Town from Liability for Bond Payments Re: a Waste Disposal Facility
Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work
Question of Fact Whether Board of Education Liable for Negligent Supervision of Violent Student
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.

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

IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, THE CHILD’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS SHOULD BE... THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S...