Ephraim Hedvat, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard Klein, D.D.S., Defendant-Respondent. (2022)

Per Curiam.

Order (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated December 6, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in this dental malpractice action. Defendant met his prima facie burden by demonstrating that he "did not depart from good and accepted dental practices" in treating the plaintiff (Hartt v Kramer, 155 AD3d 560 [2017]), or, if there was such a departure, that it was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Kozlowski v Oana, 102 AD3d 751, 752-753 [2013]). Once the defendant met this burden, plaintiff was obligated to rebut defendant's prima facie showing with competent evidence demonstrating that the defendant departed from accepted dental practice (see Biondi v Behrman, 149 AD3d 562, 563 [2017], lv dismissed and denied 30 NY3d 1012 [2017]). Here, plaintiff's general allegations of dental malpractice, which were conclusory and unsupported by competent medical evidence, were insufficient to defeat defendant's motion (see Masucci v Feder, 196 AD2d 416, 420 [1993]). Nor did plaintiff establish that any discovery allegedly still outstanding "might lead to facts that would support [his] opposition to the motion" (Laporta v PPC Commercial, LLC, 204 AD3d 538, 539 [2022]).

We have examined plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: November 22, 2022