ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The respondents made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that certain causes of action alleging dental malpractice were time-barred. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to lay bare their proof and establish that the continuous treatment doctrine applied (see Kasten v. Blaustein, 214 A.D.2d 539; Grassman v. Slovin, 206 A.D.2d 504).
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the respondents' treatment of the plaintiff Gary Lane after October 30, 1995, constituted continuous treatment for the same illness, injury, or condition underlying the subject causes of action alleging dental malpractice (see Rizk v. Cohen, 73 N.Y.2d 98; Kasten v. Blaustein, supra; Juba v. Bachman, 255 A.D.2d 492). The affidavit of the plaintiff Gary Lane in opposition contradicted his sworn deposition testimony and was properly disregarded (see Samuel v. Khalid, 246 A.D.2d 523). The remainder of the plaintiffs' submissions failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, as their expert's affidavit contained only conclusory statements and failed to address the statements made by the respondents' expert (see Kaplan v. Hamilton Med. Assocs., 262 A.D.2d 609).
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.