Opinion
Argued February 6, 2001.
March 5, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated April 18, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Charles X. Connick, PLLC, Mineola, N.Y. (David Pallai of counsel), for appellant.
Rich Rich, P.C. (Jeffrey M. Rich and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the treatment rendered by the defendant dentist more than 2 1/2 years before the commencement of this action constituted a continuous course of treatment tolling the Statute of Limitations (see, Busti-O'Leary v. Mancuso, 258 A.D.2d 549; Parker v. Jankunas, 227 A.D.2d 537).
With regard to treatment rendered within the 2 1/2-year period before this action was commenced, the conflicting opinions of the defendant's and the plaintiffs' experts raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant committed malpractice (see, Lambos v. Weintraub, 246 A.D.2d 356, 358; Luthart v. Danesh, 201 A.D.2d 930, 931; Cerkvenik v. County of Westchester, 200 A.D.2d 703). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion.