Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norriah Jackson-Barrett v. Cohen Dental and Implant Center

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


April 26, 2011

NORRIAH JACKSON-BARRETT,
APPELLANT,
v.
COHEN DENTAL AND IMPLANT CENTER,
RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), dated March 30, 2009.

Jackson-Barrett v Cohen Dental & Implant Ctr.

Decided on April 26, 2011

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ.

The decision, insofar as appealed from, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the complaint. The appeal is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered June 4, 2010 dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover her down payment of $25,000 from defendant dental center which, she alleged, had not properly rendered dental services. At a non-jury trial, plaintiff testified that she had contracted with defendant for the installation of dental implants. As the implants had never been installed, she sought to recover the $25,000 paid to defendant. Dr. Cohen testified on defendant's behalf that the dental procedures performed in preparation for the installation of the implants were extensive and prolonged, that the $25,000 had been applied to plaintiff's account and covered the procedures performed, and that plaintiff had failed to return to her office for the completion of the dental work. Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint.

As Dr. Cohen demonstrated that she had performed dental services in excess of $25,000, which were expressly provided for in the contract, and for which she was entitled to be compensated (see 83A NY Jur 2d, Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers §§ 201, 203), we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 26, 2011

20110426

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.