From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Connecticut v. Hoexter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2007
45 A.D.3d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 1886 1886A 114672/04.

November 1, 2007.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered May 18, 2006 and December 6, 2006, which, in a subrogation based on dental malpractice, denied defendant-appellant's motions for a severance of the claims against him from those against the codefendants, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Joel M. Kotick, New York, for appellant.

Lutfy Santora, Staten Island (James L. Lutfy of counsel), for respondents

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.


The motion for summary judgment was properly denied for failure to make a prima facie showing that appellant's capping and splinting of the patient's teeth was in accordance with good and accepted dental practice ( compare Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, with Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Appellant's admitted consultation with the codefendants raises common issues of law and fact between the claims asserted against defendants warranting a joint trial, absent a showing, not made here, that substantial delay or prejudice would thereby result ( see Andresakis v Lynn, 236 AD2d 252). We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur"


Summaries of

Connecticut v. Hoexter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 2007
45 A.D.3d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Connecticut v. Hoexter

Case Details

Full title:CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY CO. et al, Respondents, v. DAVID L. HOEXTER…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2007

Citations

45 A.D.3d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8299
844 N.Y.S.2d 289