Cohen v. Gold
| Decision Date | 17 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2016–11348,Index No. 59719/15,2016–04977 |
| Citation | 165 A.D.3d 879,86 N.Y.S.3d 538 |
| Parties | Jacqueline M. COHEN, appellant, v. Jeffrey GOLD, et al., respondents, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
165 A.D.3d 879
86 N.Y.S.3d 538
Jacqueline M. COHEN, appellant,
v.
Jeffrey GOLD, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
2016–04977
2016–11348
Index No. 59719/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—May 3, 2018
October 17, 2018
Lance Ehrenberg (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen ], of counsel), for appellant.
Westermann Sheehy Keenan Samaan & Aydelott, LLP, White Plains, NY (Timothy J. Lenane of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated April 29, 2016, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated September 23, 2016. The order granted the motion of the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP, for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Jeffrey Gold and the causes of action regarding treatment of the plaintiff prior to December 3, 2012, insofar as asserted against the defendants Peter Taub and Quality Care Dental, LLP. The judgment, upon a portion of the order, is in favor of the defendant Jeffrey Gold and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
Cross motion by the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the order on the ground that the right of direct appeal from the order terminated upon the entry of the judgment. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 12, 2017, that branch of the cross motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the cross motion which is to dismiss the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP, which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Jeffrey Gold is granted, and the cross motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP, which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Jeffrey Gold is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, and that branch of the motion of the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP, which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, the causes of action regarding treatment of the plaintiff prior to December 3, 2012, insofar as asserted against the defendants Peter Taub and Quality Care Dental, LLP, is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant Jeffrey Gold, that branch of the motion of the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP, which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Jeffrey Gold is denied, and the order is modified accordingly; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was a dental patient of the defendants Jeffrey Gold, Peter Taub, and Quality Care Dental, LLP (hereinafter Quality). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that commencing in 2009, she was inadequately treated for abnormalities indicative of periodontal disease. In 2015, she was referred to a periodontist, who diagnosed periodontal disease and bone loss, necessitating the extraction of numerous teeth, bone grafting, and painful restorations.
In June 2015, the plaintiff commenced this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weinstein v. Gewirtz
...to seek treatment for the same or related conditions giving rise to his or her claim of malpractice, during that period" ( Cohen v. Gold, 165 A.D.3d 879, 882, 86 N.Y.S.3d 538 ). "Accordingly, a defendant cannot defeat the application of the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a ......
-
Hillary v. Gerstein, 2018-04130
...in the immediate past" ( Richardson v. Orentreich, 64 N.Y.2d 896, 898–899, 487 N.Y.S.2d 731, 477 N.E.2d 210 ; see Cohen v. Gold, 165 A.D.3d 879, 882, 86 N.Y.S.3d 538 ; Petito v. Roberts, 113 A.D.3d 743, 744, 979 N.Y.S.2d 140 ). However, the record conclusively demonstrates that the decedent......
-
Gist v. Santiago
... ... order to continue treatment with a provider knowledgeable ... about the patient's condition. See Rizk v ... Cohen, 73 N.Y.2d 98, 104 [1989]; see also Young v ... New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 91 N.Y.2d 291, ... 296 [1998]]. Defendant further argues ... traced to that condition" the continuous treatment ... doctrine is applicable. Weinstein, 208 A.D.3d at 719 ... [quoting Cohen v. Gold, 165 A.D.3d 879, 882 [2d ... Dept. 2018]]. The affirmations of the experts established ... that while Ms. Gist was treated for fibroids, ... ...
-
Weinstein v. Gewirtz
...to seek treatment for the same or related conditions giving rise to his or her claim of malpractice, during that period" (Cohen v Gold, 165 A.D.3d 879, 882). "Accordingly, a defendant cannot defeat the application of the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a failure to make a co......