Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to address his argument that application of the continuous treatment doctrine should be limited to claims relating to only two of the plaintiff's teeth, since this issue was raised for the first time in his reply papers (see, Galatti v Alliance Funding Co.,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.