Opinion
2001-06232
Argued March 1, 2002.
April 22, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated May 24, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Lita Feinberg and Edward M. Feinberg for partial summary judgment dismissing certain causes of action insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.
Lum, Danzis, Drasco, Positan Kleinberg, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Dennis J. Drasco of counsel), for appellants.
Jones Hirsch Connors Bull, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven H. Kaplan of counsel), for respondents.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The respondents made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that certain causes of action alleging dental malpractice were time-barred. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to lay bare their proof and establish that the continuous treatment doctrine applied (see Kasten v. Blaustein, 214 A.D.2d 539; Grassman v. Slovin, 206 A.D.2d 504).
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the respondents' treatment of the plaintiff Gary Lane after October 30, 1995, constituted continuous treatment for the same illness, injury, or condition underlying the subject causes of action alleging dental malpractice (see Rizk v. Cohen, 73 N.Y.2d 98; Kasten v. Blaustein, supra; Juba v. Bachman, 255 A.D.2d 492). The affidavit of the plaintiff Gary Lane in opposition contradicted his sworn deposition testimony and was properly disregarded (see Samuel v. Khalid, 246 A.D.2d 523). The remainder of the plaintiffs' submissions failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, as their expert's affidavit contained only conclusory statements and failed to address the statements made by the respondents' expert (see Kaplan v. Hamilton Med. Assocs., 262 A.D.2d 609).
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.