Stern v. Hausberg
| Decision Date | 22 October 1964 |
| Citation | 253 N.Y.S.2d 447,22 A.D.2d 669 |
| Parties | Pearl STERN and Israel Stern, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Jack HAUSBERG, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
G. V. Fay, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
R. D. Foglia, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before RABIN, J. P., and VALENTE, STEVENS, STEUER and STALEY, JJ.
Order, entered on December 17, 1963, granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and res judicata, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of permitting the defendant to replead the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations as to those allegations of the complaint which allege malpractice on the part of the defendant dentist with respect to bridgework installation, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The action based upon defendant dentist's malpractice was commenced on October 22, 1962. Three negligent acts are alleged, which, in order of their occurrence, pertain to bridgework, root-canal work, and the treatment of an infected molar. The statute of limitations is interposed as a defense against all of the alleged acts of negligence. In an affidavit by defendant's attorney it is stated that all work in connection with the installation of the bridge was completed as of August 8, 1960, more than two years prior to the commencement of the action. Thus, unless it is demonstrated upon a trial that the dental treatment rendered within the two-year period prior to the commencement of the action was part of 'continuous treatment' referable to the bridgework (SeeBorgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 237 N.Y.S.2d 319, 187 N.E.2d 777), the defense, as it pertains to such bridgework, may be a valid one. However, there is no averment that the root-canal work and the treatment for the infected molar were likewise performed more than two years prior to the commencement of the action. To the contrary, it is conceded that 'certain services were rendered' on December 5, 1960--a date less than two years from the commencement of the action. Consequently, the affidavit submitted by defendant does not support the defense as against the alleged acts of negligence which occurred after the installation of the bridge. Therefore, the defense as pleaded--against all three alleged acts of nagligence--may not stand. However, since the defense may be valid in part, as aforesaid, leave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siegel v. Kranis
...the treatment' (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155, 237 N.Y.S.2d 319, 321, 187 N.E.2d 777, 778; see also, Stern v. Hausberg, 22 A.D.2d 669, 253 N.Y.S.2d 477). We believe that the rule is equally relevant to the conduct of litigation by attorneys. The resemblance between the cont......
-
Chang v. Chiariello
...Dept. 1945); Supreme Burglar Alarm Corp. v. Mason, 204 Misc. 185, 122 N.Y.S.2d 398 (Civil Court--Bronx Co. 1953); Stern et al., v. Hansberg, 22 A.D.2d 699, 253 N.Y.S.2d 447 (Appellate Div.--First Dept. 1964) with the more liberal approaches inLevins v. Bucholtz, supra; Rosen v. Parking Gara......
-
Cohen v. Bloom
...Tel-A-Car of N.Y., 204 A.D.2d 297, 611 N.Y.S.2d 599; Koshgarian & Schreiner v. Vics, 112 A.D.2d 575, 491 N.Y.S.2d 509; Stern v. Hausberg, 22 A.D.2d 669, 253 N.Y.S.2d 447; Siegel, New York Prac. § 585 [2d ed.]; see also, Koch v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 62 N.Y.2d 548, 556, n. 7, 479 ......
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Cassiere
...in the particular action and denies the same effect to any fact at issue or found therein in any other action or court (Stern v. Hausberg, 22 A.D.2d 669, 253 N.Y.S.2d 447 (First Dept.1964), Levins v. Bucholz, 208 Misc. 597, 145 N.Y.S.2d 79 (Appellate Term, First Dept.1955), aff'd 2 A.D.2d 3......