dental malpractice claim in New York

6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Fuller v. Aberdalegreen nyappdiv · 2015 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025Fuller v Aberdale , 130 AD3d 1277, 1280-1283 [3d Dept 2015]). 2025Fuller v Aberdale , 130 AD3d 1277, 1280-1283 [3d Dept 2015]).	1	1
Kukic v. Grandgreen nyappdiv · 2011 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020In the absence of tortious conduct by Dr. Khasdan, Hutchinson, Dr. Khasdan's employer, is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the dental malpractice claim against it, since the claim is premised solely on vicarious liability ( see Kukic v Grand , 84 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2011]).	1	1
Nykorchuck v. Henriquesgreen ny · 1991 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002However, under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 21/2-year period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment “when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” (Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151, 155 ; see, Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255, 258 ; McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399 ; Young v New York City Health & Hosps.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Shell green nyappdiv · 1999 2 sentences 2014Although plaintiff demonstrated potential merit to a dental malpractice claim based on an affirmation from an expert, plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for waiting almost a year after the one-year limitation period had expired before moving for a default judgment (see Utak at 523 ; cf. LaValle v Astoria Constr. & Paving Corp., 266 AD2d 28 [1st Dept 1999]). 2014Although plaintiff demonstrated potential merit to a dental malpractice claim based on an affirmation from an expert, plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for waiting almost a year after the one-year limitation period had expired before moving for a default judgment (see Utak at 523 ; cf. LaValle v Astoria Constr. & Paving Corp., 266 AD2d 28 [1st Dept 1999]).	2	2014–2014
Borgia v. City of New York green ny · 1962 1 sentence 2002However, under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 21/2-year period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment “when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” (Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151, 155 ; see, Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255, 258 ; McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399 ; Young v New York City Health & Hosps.	1	2002–2002
McDermott v. Torre green ny · 1982 1 sentence 2002However, under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 21/2-year period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment “when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” (Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151, 155 ; see, Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255, 258 ; McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399 ; Young v New York City Health & Hosps.	1	2002–2002
Central Nyack Fire District v. Valley Cottage Fire District neutral nyappdiv · 1984 1 sentence 1987Nevertheless, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs, who are alleging a dental malpractice claim predicated upon matters not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laymen, to submit an affidavit containing evidentiary facts by a person competent to attest to the meritorious nature of the claim, i.e., a dental expert (see, Warner v Kudler, 101 AD2d 886 , and cases cited therein).	1	1987–1987
Stolowitz v. Mount Sinai Hospital green ny · 1983 1 sentence 1987Neither the affidavit of the plaintiff Haruko Hammer, who does not allege to be a dental expert (see, Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 , supra), nor the verified complaint suffice to establish the merit of her claim (see, Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999 ).	1	1987–1987
Canter v. Mulnick green ny · 1983 1 sentence 1987Neither the affidavit of the plaintiff Haruko Hammer, who does not allege to be a dental expert (see, Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 , supra), nor the verified complaint suffice to establish the merit of her claim (see, Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999 ).	1	1987–1987
Fiore v. Galang green ny · 1985 1 sentence 1987Neither the affidavit of the plaintiff Haruko Hammer, who does not allege to be a dental expert (see, Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 , supra), nor the verified complaint suffice to establish the merit of her claim (see, Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999 ).	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

NY 6 (1987–2025) OH 3 (1992–2025) MD 3 (2004–2007) LA 2 (1991–1993) IL 2 (2003–2003)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check