Polizzano v. Weiner
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
On December 1, 1987, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover damages for dental malpractice. The defendant asserted a defense based on the 21/i-year Statute of *804Limitations (see, CPLR 214-a). The plaintiffs later made a motion to strike that affirmative defense, invoking the "continuous treatment” doctrine.
The Supreme Court held that the "continuous treatment” doctrine had no application and, upon searching the record (see, Mojica v New York City Tr. Auth., 117 AD2d 722, 723-724), concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint, to the extent that it is based on dental malpractice…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Nykorchuck v. HenriquesNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Massie v. CrawfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Rizk v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Mojica v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gomez v. KatzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Grippi v. JankunasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Washington v. ElahiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Smith v. FieldsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Ganess v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.