Tolbert v Rioseco
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 7, 2012
City Court of Mount Vernon
Arnee Tolbert, Plaintiff
against
Dr. Robert Rioseco c/o The Center for Cosmetic Dentistry, Defendant.
0746-12
Montgomery Delaney, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
277 Tarrytown Road
White Plains, New York 10607
Westermann, Sheehy, Keenan
Samaan & Aydelott, LLP
Timothy M. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant
222 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 305
White Plains, New York 10605
Adam Seiden, J.
Plaintiff brought this proceeding to recover five thousand dollars ($5,000.00)
alleging "damage caused to a person" and a "failure to provide goods paid for". Plaintiff
stated that she went to defendant to provide four (4) porcelain crowns on implants put
in her mouth by another dentist some six to eight months prior. Plaintiff alleged that
defendant agreed to do this after his examination of her mouth. Plaintiff financed the
work to be done through Chase Bank health advance.
Plaintiff further alleges that when she came home after defendant did a
tangential root canal and prep for a temporary bridge and crowns she was
uncomfortable with the service provided. Defendant alleges that plaintiff yelled at him
[*2]
in front of staff and other patients, that the bridge was uncomfortable and the bite was
wrong. Plaintiff went to another dentist and wrote letters for defendant to cease all
work.
Defendant stated that he had the crowns fabricated by an outside lab and that
any uncomfortable feelings were caused by the prior dentist not putting the implants in
the optimal places.
Plaintiff stated that Chase Bank paid the defendant eight thousand five hundred
and fifty eight dollars and sixty one cents ($8,558.61) and he owes her six thousand
four hundred and forty one dollars and thirty nine cents ($6,441.39) after deduction for
the services rendered appropriately. Plaintiff states that the crowns produced by
defendant were not porcelain as required and therefore she need not pay for them.
After hearing the testimony of the parties, judging their credibility and after
reviewing the exhibits submitted, I find for defendant. The claim is dismissed. It is very
difficult to judge the basis for plaintiff's claim. Her arguments against the temporaries
sound in malpractice not contract. Her failure to produce expert testimony on her "injury
to a person claim" is fatal. See Bryan v. Staten Island University Hospital 54 AD 3rd 793
(2nd Dept 2008). The same requirement of expert testimony applies to a claim brought
in small claims court. See Train v. Erfanian 34 Misc 3rd 147(A) (App Term 9th & 10th
Districts, 2012).
With regard to the claim for a failure to provide goods paid for, the plaintiff has
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant gave her a
specific promise to give her a definitive result. There appears to have been no
[*3]
contractual meeting of the minds. See Clarke v. Mikael 238 AD2d 538 (2nd Dept 1997)
The above meets this Court's statutory charge to do substantial justice between the parties.
The above constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: Mount Vernon, New York
December 7, 2012
HON. ADAM SEIDEN
Associate City Judge of Mount Vernon
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.