Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Alison Tuitt, J.), entered December 8, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam:

Order (Alison Tuitt, J.), entered December 8, 2004, modified to dismiss the cause of action for lack of informed consent, and, as modified, affirmed without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action for dental malpractice was properly denied since issues of fact exist as to whether the utilized extraction procedure used by defendant conformed to accepted standards of care in the dental community and proximately caused the cervical injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff while under general anesthesia (see Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).However, the cause of action for lack of informed consent should have been dismissed. The undisputed evidence established that the teeth in question suffered from deep decay and that an extraction was the only reasonable course of treatment under the circumstances. Plaintiff would therefore be unable to show that a reasonably prudent, fully informed person would not have undergone the treatment, one of the required elements of a cause of action to recover damages based on a lack of informed consent (see Public Health Law § 2805-d [3]; Stancavage v Mirman, 309 AD2d 918 [2003]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: April 27, 2006