Legal Opinion

Adames v. Velasquez

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 2008Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Charles J. Markey, J.

*883Education Law § 6602 states: “Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice under this article shall practice dentistry or use the title ‘dentist’.” The unique question posed by this decision, not encountered previously in New York’s case law, is whether the plaintiff, who allegedly sustained injuries to his teeth by the actions of an unlicensed dentist or imposter and who waited almost six years before bringing any action, can state a cause of action on a legal theory that carries a six-year statute of limitations.

The defendants have…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. McDermott v. TorreNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Nykorchuck v. HenriquesNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Nonnon v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2007

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API