Opinion
2016-989 Q C NO.
06-16-2017
Zoya N. Shalamova, Appellant, v. Irina Pinksy, D.D.S., Respondent.
Zoya N. Shalamova, appellant pro se. Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan LLP (David Bloom, Esq.), for respondent.
PRESENT: :
Zoya N. Shalamova, appellant pro se.
Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan LLP (David Bloom, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered September 3, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $5,000 based on a claim of dental malpractice. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found in favor of defendant, and a judgment was entered dismissing the action.
On appeal, this court's review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).
"The plaintiff in a dental malpractice action must establish that the defendant departed from good and accepted dental practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries" (Cohen v Kalman, 54 AD3d 307, 307 [2008]; see Knutson v Sand, 282 AD2d 42 [2001]). Although small claims courts are held to a more relaxed standard concerning certain statutory rules of evidence (see CCA 1804), a plaintiff in a small claims action for dental malpractice generally must establish the elements through expert testimony (see Blum v Yuabov, 12 Misc 3d 139[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51333[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; Davis v Levine, 4 Misc 3d 143[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51101[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).
A review of the record indicates that plaintiff failed to establish, through expert testimony, the elements of dental malpractice. Consequently, the Civil Court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see CCA 1804, 1807).
We note that we do not consider those documents annexed to plaintiff's brief which are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: June 16, 2017