General
Barbara A. Galecki, Appellant, v. Omnicare Dental et al., Defendants, and David Heering, D.M.D., Respondent
121 A.D.3d 594995 N.Y.S.2d 49·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2014·NY
Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Barbara A. Galecki, Appellant, v Omnicare Dental et al., Defendants, and David Heering, D.M.D., Respondent.
[995 NYS2d 49]
[MAJORITY]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which granted defendant David Heering D.M.D.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Dismissal of the complaint was properly granted since the alleged malpractice occurred in 2001 and 2002 and the action was not commenced until August 2007, which was well beyond the 2V2-year statute of limitations (see CFLR 214-a). The continuous treatment doctrine does not apply to this case and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations, since Dr. Heering examined plaintiffs mouth on one occasion in January 2006, for reasons unrelated to either of the original conditions for which she was treated in 2001 and 2002, which are the subjects of her complaint as against Heering (see McManus v Lipton, 107 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2013]; Marrone v Klein, 33 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2006]).
Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.