Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered June 30, 2003 (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered June 30, 2003 (Debra Rose Samuels,
J.) affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, inartfully alleging dental malpractice, was properly dismissed, since defendant's expert medical opinion made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff's responding submissions failed to include competent medical proof that defendant was negligent and that there was a causal nexus between any such negligence and plaintiff's claimed injuries (see Fiore v Galong, 64 NY2d 999 [1985]; DeCinto v Lawrence Hosp., 299 AD2d 165 [2002], lv denied in part and dismissed in part 100 NY2d 549 [2003]; cf. [*2]Esposito v Jenson, 229 AD2d 951, 952 [1996]). Nor should a different result obtain on the basis of the plaintiff's pro se status. "A litigant appearing pro se acquires no greater right than any other litigant and such appearance may not be used to deprive defendant[] of the same rights enjoyed by other defendants" (Banushi v Lambrakos, 305 AD2d 524, lv denied 1 NY3d 504 [2003], quoting Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995, 995
[1988]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.