The opinion
Trindade v Rock
2024 NY Slip Op 32833(U)
August 12, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 805340/2019
Judge: John J. Kelley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2024 12:48 PM INDEX NO. 805340/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. JOHN J. KELLEY PART 56M
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 805340/2019
GRACE TRINDADE,
Plaintiff,
-v-
AMENDED DECISION + ORDER
DR. ALEXANDER ROCK, DR. ROBERT WINEGARDEN, AFTER INQUEST
ROBERT F. WINEGARDEN, D.D.S., P.C., DR. TATYANA
BERMAN, and JERRY H. LYNN, D.D.S.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The court’s prior decision and order after inquest, dated March 25, 2024, is recalled and vacated,
upon the court’s own motion, to reflect the discontinuance of the action as against the defendant
Dr. Tatyana Berman, and the following amended decision and order is substituted therefor:
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an action to recover damages for dental malpractice. The plaintiff alleged that
the defendants willfully and wantonly permitted unlicensed dentists and unlicensed assistants
and technicians to diagnose and treat her. The plaintiff contended, inter alia, that the
defendants negligently performed diagnostic procedures to determine the extent and nature of
her dental problems, negligently prepared teeth for crowns and placed implants, failed to inform
her of the risk and consequences of the prescribed treatment, and thereafter negligently
abandoned her. In an order dated September 9, 2021, the court, upon concluding that the
plaintiff set forth sufficient proof of the facts underlying her cause of action to recover for
negligence and lack of informed consent, granted her motion for leave to enter a default
judgment against the defendants Dr. Alexander Rock, Dr. Robert Winegarden, Robert F.
Winegarden, D.D.S, P.C., and Jerry H. Lynn, D.D.S. (collectively the defaulting defendants), on
the issue of liability, and set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages, to be
conducted simultaneously with the trial against the answering defendant, Dr. Tatyana Berman.
805340/2019 TRINDADE, GRACE vs. ROCK, DR., ALEXANDER Page 1 of 6
1 of 6
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2024 12:48 PM INDEX NO. 805340/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2024
On January 6, 2022, the plaintiff filed a non-jury note of issue. On June 14, 2023, the
court entered a trial-scheduling order, which fixed July 31, 2023 as the date for both the nonjury
trial against Berman and the inquest against the defaulting defendants. None of the defaulting
defendants appeared on that date. The court proceeded to hold an inquest on the issue of
damages on that date. The plaintiff, however, discontinued the action against Berman. The
court awards compensatory damages against the defaulting defendants, jointly and severally,
the sum of $139,800, and awards punitive damages against the defaulting defendants, jointly
and severally, in the sum of $100,000.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
The facts underlying the issue of liability for dental malpractice are set forth in this court’s
September 9, 2021 order.
At the July 31, 2023 inquest on the issue of damages, the plaintiff testified on her own
behalf and adduced the expert testimony of Herbert Rubin, D.D.S., a dentist who had practiced
dentistry for more than 50 years in New York State. The court finds that the credible testimony
of both the plaintiff and her expert dentist established the following facts:
The plaintiff went to see the defaulting defendants for treatment of her upper teeth,
including the placement of a bridge. The defaulting defendants’ laboratory technician, who was
not a licensed dentist, did much of the dental work that the plaintiff required. Although she
originally was told that it would cost her $7,000 for the necessary dental work, she instead paid
$14,800, as the price changed upon each visit. Despite payment in full, the defaulting
defendants did not complete the necessary dental work, inasmuch as, when the plaintiff
returned to the office for scheduled appointments, she was sent home without treatment after
waiting for hours. Although the defaulting defendants initially installed a temporary bridge, that
bridge required repair to the extent that those defendants tried to “hammer” the plaintiff’s mouth
again to get it out. The plaintiff cannot chew properly, the bridge is loose and moves when she
805340/2019 TRINDADE, GRACE vs. ROCK, DR., ALEXANDER Page 2 of 6
2 of 6
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2024 12:48 PM INDEX NO. 805340/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2024
speaks, blood comes from her mouth constantly, and she gets frequent infections. The plaintiff
has been unable to fix her teeth because she cannot afford to do so.
The plaintiff will need six implants and a full reconstruction, and will suffer from pain and
discomfort for approximately six months, while it is uncertain as to whether the implants will take
hold in the first instance. The fair and reasonable cost of fixing the plaintiff’s upper teeth is
between $45,000 and $55,000.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A defaulting defendant admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the
basic issue of liability (see Amusement Bus. Underwriters v American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878,
880 [1985]; Cole-Hatchard v Eggers, 132 AD3d 718, 720 [2d Dept 2015]; Gonzalez v Wu, 131
AD3d 1205, 1206 [2d Dept 2015]). The defaulting defendants are, however, “entitled to present
testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses at the inquest on damages”
(Minicozzi v Gerbino, 301 AD2d 580, 581 [2d Dept 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see
Rudra v Friedman, 123 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2d Dept 2014]; Toure v Harrison, 6 AD3d 270, 272
[1st Dept 2004]). All of the defaulting defendants elected not to present such testimony or
cross-examine witnesses at the inquest here, despite being provided with notice of the inquest.
This court already has determined that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover for
dental malpractice, inasmuch as a deviation or departure from accepted practice, and evidence
that such departure was a proximate case of the plaintiff’s injuries, constitute dental malpractice
(see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204, 206 [1st Dept 2010]; Frye v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 70 AD3d
15, 24 [1st Dept 2009]; Elias v Bash, 54 AD3d 354, 357 [2d Dept 2008]; DeFilippo v New York
Downtown Hosp., 10 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2004]).
“The ‘reasonableness’ of compensation must be measured against relevant precedent of
comparable cases” (Kayes v Liberati, 104 AD3d 739, 741 [2d Dept 2013]; see Urbina v 26 Ct.
St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268, 275 [1st Dept 2007]; Reed v City of New York, 304 AD2d 1, 7
[1st Dept 2003]; Halsey v New York City Tr. Auth., 114 AD3d 726, 727 [2d Dept 2014]).
805340/2019 TRINDADE, GRACE vs. ROCK, DR., ALEXANDER Page 3 of 6
3 of 6
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2024 12:48 PM INDEX NO. 805340/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2024
“Although prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the
courts, they guide and enlighten them with respect to determining whether a verdict in a given
case constitutes reasonable compensation” (Miller v Weisel, 15 AD3d 458, 459 [2d Dept 2005];
see Garcia v CPS 1 Realty, L.P., 164 AD3d at 659 [2d Dept 2018]; Vainer v DiSalvo, 107 AD3d
697, 698-699 [2d Dept 2013]; Reed v City of New York, 304 AD2d at 7). What constitutes
“reasonable compensation” must be assessed with due regard to the “circumstances presented”
(Luna v New York City Tr. Auth., 116 AD3d 438, 438 [1st Dept 2014]).
The court concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of $70,000 for past pain and
suffering (see Altman-Fider v Gershon, 2002 NY Slip Op 30122[U], *5, 2002 NY Misc LEXIS
2029 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Feb. 19, 2002] [action from more than 20 years ago, holding that an
award of $40,000 for past pain and suffering was consistent with several other tooth injury
cases]; see also Classen v Ashkinazy, 258 AD2d 863, 865 [3d Dept 1999][affirming past pain
and suffering award of $40,000 to plaintiff with failed lower dental implant]; Teller v Anzano, 263
AD2d 647, 650 [3d Dept 1999] [modifying judgment to allow $35,000 past pain and suffering
award in personal injury action involving damage to two front teeth]; Kushner v Mollin, 181 AD2d
866, 867 [2d Dept 1992] [affirming award of $40,000 for past pain and suffering where plaintiff
lost six upper teeth]). The court notes that these representative cases were decided between
20 and 30 years ago, so that a reasonable award in 2024 would take inflation and other
economic factors into account.
The court also concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of $14,800 for her past
expenses, and $55,000 for her future expenses, in accordance with the testimony adduced by
the plaintiff and her expert, Dr. Rubin.
New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages;
however, a demand or request for punitive damages is viable when attached to a substantive
cause of action (see Randi A. J. v Long Is. Surgi-Center, 46 AD3d 74, 80 [2d Dept
2007]). While a demand for punitive damages is often raised in terms of conduct that is
805340/2019 TRINDADE, GRACE vs. ROCK, DR., ALEXANDER Page 4 of 6
4 of 6
[* 4]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2024 12:48 PM INDEX NO. 805340/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2024
intentional, malicious, and done in bad faith, conduct warranting an award of punitive damages
“need not be intentionally harmful but may consist of actions which constitute willful or wanton
negligence or recklessness” (id. at 80-81; see Home Ins. Co. v Am. Home Prods. Corp., 75
NY2d 196, 204 [1990]). Moreover, punitive damages are proper where there is sufficient
evidence of reprehensible conduct evincing a gross indifference to patient care (see Brown v
LaFontaine-Rish Med. Assoc., 33 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2006]; Graham v Columbia Presbyt.
Med. Ctr., 185 AD2d 753, 754 [1st Dept 1992]).
The court concludes that the defaulting defendants’ behavior and the practices that they
engaged in, including the abandonment of the plaintiff as their patient, and, in Lynn’s case,
practicing dentistry after surrendering his license, are sufficient to warrant an award of punitive
damages. Such an award is appropriate to deter future reprehensible conduct by the defaulting
defendants and others similarly situated (see Garber v Lynn, 79 AD3d 401, 403 [1st Dept 2010];
Randi A. J. v Long Is. Surgi-Center, 46 AD3d at 81). As such, the court concludes that the
plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, payable by the
defaulting defendants, jointly and severally.
III. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, it is,
ORDERED that the Clerk of the court shall enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Grace
Trindade, 1506 150th Street, Whitestone, New York, 11357 and against:
(a) the defendants Dr. Alexander Rock, 5 Commack Road, Commack, New York
11725, Dr. Robert Winegarden, 401 East 34th Street, New York, New York
10016, Robert F. Winegarden, D.D.S., P.C, 57 West 57th Street, Suite 610,
New York, New York 10019, and Jerry H. Lynn, D.D.S., 41 West 58th Street,
New York, New York, 10019, jointly and severally, in the sum of $139,800 as
and for compensatory damages, with statutory interest at 9% per annum from
September 8, 2021, as against Dr. Alexander Rock, Dr. Robert Winegarden,
Robert F. Winegarden, D.D.S., P.C, and Jerry H. Lynn, D.D.S., and,
(b) against the defendants Dr. Alexander Rock, Dr. Robert Winegarden, Robert
F. Winegarden, D.D.S., P.C, and Jerry H. Lynn, D.D.S., jointly and severally,
in the additional sum of $100,000 as and for punitive damages, with statutory
interest at 9% per annum from September 8, 2021.
805340/2019 TRINDADE, GRACE vs. ROCK, DR., ALEXANDER Page 5 of 6
5 of 6
[* 5]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2024 12:48 PM INDEX NO. 805340/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2024
This constitutes the Amended Decision and Order After Inquest of the court.
8/12/2024 $SIG$
DATE JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART X OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
805340/2019 TRINDADE, GRACE vs. ROCK, DR., ALEXANDER Page 6 of 6
6 of 6
[* 6]