Summary
holding that a dentist's statement that crowns placed in plaintiff's mouth would last ten to fifteen years was "legally insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intentionally concealed an act of dental malpractice and knowingly misrepresented the condition of the plaintiff's teeth"
Summary of this case from Bisson v. KingOpinion
October 15, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In this action arising, inter alia, out of the alleged improper capping of the plaintiff's teeth by the defendant dentist, the plaintiff contends that the defendant dentist wrongfully induced her to refrain from commencing this action and that he is therefore precluded, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, from interposing a defense based upon the Statute of Limitations.
In support of her contention, the plaintiff substantially relies upon the dentist's purported statement, made during the course of his treatment of the plaintiff, that the crowns he had placed in the plaintiff's mouth would last 10 to 15 years. This statement is legally insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intentionally concealed an act of dental malpractice and knowingly misrepresented the condition of the plaintiff's teeth (see, Eagleston v. Mt. Sinai Med. Center, 144 A.D.2d 427; Augstein v. Levey, 3 A.D.2d 595, affd 4 N.Y.2d 791). Nor could the plaintiff justifiably rely upon this statement so as to prevent her from discovering the alleged malpractice during the approximately 3 1/2-year period that elapsed between the conclusion of the dentist's treatment of the plaintiff and the commencement of her treatment by another dentist (see, McIvor v Di Benedetto, 121 A.D.2d 519). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not applicable to the instant case and properly dismissed as time barred the plaintiff's second cause of action sounding in dental malpractice (cf., Matter of Steyer, 70 N.Y.2d 990, 993).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.