DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
During the period in question, the defendant neither diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from periodontal disease nor undertook to treat her for that alleged condition. As a result, the Supreme Court properly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the Statute of Limitations applicable to the plaintiff's dental malpractice claim, which was based on that alleged condition ( see, Pietromonaco v. Schwartzman, 259 A.D.2d 474 [2d Dept., Mar. 1, 1999); Chesrow v. Galiani, 234 A.D.2d 9; Johansen v. Ozer, 223 A.D.2d 412; Iazzetta v. Vicenzi, 200 A.D.2d 209).