Terranova v. Finklea

Summary

The court reversed an order granting the defendant dentist summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ dental malpractice claim. It held that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing because the expert affirmation did not address specific allegations that the tooth could have been saved through endodontic therapy and that a fixed rather than removable dental prosthesis should have been used.

Holdings

1. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment because the expert affirmation did not establish the absence of a departure from accepted dental practice or the absence of injury caused by such a departure.
2. Because the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the court denied the motion without considering the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the dental-malpractice claim.
2. Whether a defendant's expert affirmation that does not address specific malpractice allegations in the plaintiff's bill of particulars is sufficient to support summary judgment.

Disposition

reversed