From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fulton v. Marathon Dental Servs., P.C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 28, 2012
100 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-11-28

Timothy L. FULTON, appellant, v. MARATHON DENTAL SERVICES, P.C., et al., defendants, Bill B. Akpinar, etc., respondent.

Lutfy & Santora, Staten Island, N.Y. (James L. Lutfy of counsel), for appellant. Jones, Hirsch, Connors, Miller & Bull, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael P. Kelly of counsel), for respondent.



Lutfy & Santora, Staten Island, N.Y. (James L. Lutfy of counsel), for appellant. Jones, Hirsch, Connors, Miller & Bull, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael P. Kelly of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated May 20, 2011, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Bill B. Akpinar which was pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned and denied his cross motion for further disclosure, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated May 20, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant Bill B. Akpinar to quash a subpoena served upon a nonparty witness and for a protective order against further discovery.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In this dental malpractice action, the plaintiff filed his note of issue and certificate of readiness in January 2005. On November 7, 2005, the action was stricken from the calendar, but the note of issue was not vacated. Although the plaintiff was granted an extension of time to restore the case to the calendar upon the resolution of an appeal from a prior order, and although that appeal was resolved in February 2007, the plaintiff failed to take any further steps to restore the case to the calendar. In fact, the plaintiff undertook little or no action to prosecute the case during the ensuing four years until the respondent moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint as abandoned.

In opposition to the respondent's motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the respondent ( see Botsas v. Grossman, 51 A.D.3d 617, 858 N.Y.S.2d 267;see also Vidal v. Ricciardi, 81 A.D.3d 635, 915 N.Y.S.2d 630;Nasuro v. PI Assoc., LLC, 78 A.D.3d 1030, 912 N.Y.S.2d 86;Mooney v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 795, 911 N.Y.S.2d 395;Leinas v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 72 A.D.3d 905, 898 N.Y.S.2d 500;Basetti v. Nour, 287 A.D.2d 126, 131, 731 N.Y.S.2d 35). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had a potentially meritorious cause of action by the submission of an expert's affidavit ( see Williams v. D'Angelo, 24 A.D.3d 538, 806 N.Y.S.2d 238;Yousian v. New York Med. Ctr., Hosp. of Queens, 277 A.D.2d 449, 716 N.Y.S.2d 695), failed to present a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the case, and failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment ( see Sang Seok Na v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 980, 931 N.Y.S.2d 398;LaMarca v. Scotto Bros. Woodbury Rest. Inc., 87 A.D.3d 984, 929 N.Y.S.2d 494;Gajek v. Hampton Bays Volunteer Ambulance Corps., Inc., 77 A.D.3d 885, 910 N.Y.S.2d 109; Castillo v. City of New York, 6 A.D.3d 568, 775 N.Y.S.2d 82). In addition, since nearly eight years had passed between the date of the alleged last dental treatment and the date of the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, the respondent would be prejudiced if the action were restored to the trial calendar at this late date ( see Agli v. O'Connor, 92 A.D.3d 815, 939 N.Y.S.2d 112;Sang Seok Na v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 88 A.D.3d at 980, 931 N.Y.S.2d 398;Gajek v. Hampton Bays Volunteer Ambulance Corps., Inc., 77 A.D.3d at 885, 910 N.Y.S.2d 109;Kalyuskin v. Rudisel, 306 A.D.2d 246, 760 N.Y.S.2d 358;McCarthy v. Bagner, 271 A.D.2d 509, 710 N.Y.S.2d 249).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent's motion which was to dismiss the complaint as abandoned.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Fulton v. Marathon Dental Servs., P.C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 28, 2012
100 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Fulton v. Marathon Dental Servs., P.C.

Case Details

Full title:Timothy L. FULTON, appellant, v. MARATHON DENTAL SERVICES, P.C., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 28, 2012

Citations

100 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
955 N.Y.S.2d 149
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8093

Citing Cases

Salatino v. Pompa

After the plaintiff undertook little or no action to prosecute the case during the ensuing two years after it…

Lewis v. Jutkowitz

In support of their cross motion, the appellants demonstrated that no action had been taken on this case for…