From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Provenzano v. Becall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1988
138 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 21, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is now clear that intentionally implanted devices, in this case silver point wires permanently fixed in various areas of the plaintiff's mouth during the course of root-canal therapy, cannot be considered "foreign objects" within the meaning of CPLR 214-a (cf., Goldsmith v. Howmedica, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 120, 122, n 3; see, Lombardi v. DeLuca, 130 A.D.2d 632, lv granted 70 N.Y.2d 612; Mitchell v. Abitol, 130 A.D.2d 633). Therefore, the plaintiff's contention that, because the wires in or underneath two teeth improperly extruded into soft gum tissue, these wires became "foreign objects" which "contributed" to the deterioration of the plaintiff's mouth but which were allegedly not discovered until six years after completion of treatment is without merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Provenzano v. Becall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1988
138 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Provenzano v. Becall

Case Details

Full title:LORAYNE PROVENZANO, Appellant, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAUL BECALL…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

LaBarbera v. New York Eye & Ear Infirmary

such as surgical clamps, scalpels and sponges are foreign objects because they are "introduced into the…

Teixeira v. Bhalla

He opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that defendants' act of leaving the hemoclip in…