From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chico v. Nadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 12, 2002
300 A.D.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2519

December 12, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered August 27, 2001, which, in an action for dental malpractice, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and transferred the action to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325(d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jeffrey P. Santoro, for defendant-appellant.

Before: ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, SULLIVAN, FRIEDMAN, GONZALEZ, JJ.


We reject appellant's characterization of the amended complaint as replete with legal conclusions and devoid of factual allegations. Fair notice is given of plaintiff's treatment by appellant on specified dates in specified ways that caused specified injuries, and, at this pleading juncture, we perceive no prejudice caused by plaintiff's description of her injuries and appellant's acts in lay terms (CPLR 3013, 3026; see Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 65-66). Plaintiffs' alleged injuries make a recovery of more than $25,000 appear doubtful, and, accordingly, the transfer to Civil Court was a proper exercise of discretion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Chico v. Nadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 12, 2002
300 A.D.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Chico v. Nadler

Case Details

Full title:ALBERTO CHICO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-respondents, v. SHELDON NADLER, D.M.D.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 12, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
750 N.Y.S.2d 846

Citing Cases

Mazza v. Seneca

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, even the lesser sanction of preclusion would not have been…

Lleshanaku v. Kenmore Assoc

Before: Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner, Friedman, JJ. Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion…