Opinion
November 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.).
Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the plaintiffs' submissions in opposition to the application for partial summary judgment, including the defendant's own treatment chart and deposition testimony, and the deposition testimony of the plaintiff Anna Lee, sufficed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant engaged in continuous treatment of Anna's periodontal condition so as to toll the Statute of Limitations ( see, McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399; see, e.g., Easton v. Kellerman, 248 A.D.2d 913; Kimiatek v. Post, 240 A.D.2d 372; Parker v. Jankunas, 227 A.D.2d 537). Furthermore, since the acts of alleged dental malpractice occurred before July 1, 1985, the abbreviated limitations period found in CPLR 214-a is inapplicable ( see, L 1985, ch 760, § 10), and this action is governed by a three-year Statute of Limitations ( see, Ciciless v. Lane, 129 A.D.2d 759).
Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.