Opinion
January 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).
Plaintiff has not shown that the various treatments she received for different teeth groups were related to the same condition or injury, and thus part of a course of continuous treatment, especially in light of her inordinate delays between visits, unexcused failure to keep several appointments, and disregard of certain of defendant's instructions ( see, Coyne v Besser, 165 A.D.2d 857, 859, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 808; see also, Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 N.Y.2d 255, 259). If the gravamen of plaintiff's claim is that defendant failed to establish a course of treatment, then "we cannot accept the self-contradictory proposition that the failure to establish a course of treatment is a course of treatment" ( supra, at 259). Plaintiff is therefore barred by the two-year-and-six-month dental malpractice Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214-a) from pursuing any claims for treatment that occurred before October 29, 1990, the earliest treatment date within that period. We modify as indicated to correct an apparent inadvertence.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.