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
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOVING MONEY THROUGH A NEW YORK BANK IS ENOUGH TO CONFER PERSONAL JURISDICTION ON OUT-OF-STATE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY HELD IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE NEW YORK A CONVENIENT FORUM (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD NOT AGREED ON THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS ‘NOT SURE’ HE COULD BE IMPARTIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSINCERE PROMISE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN REPLY AND WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINATIVE, DID NOT ALLEGE NEW FACTS, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN AND FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FIRST DEPT). ​

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...