Plaintiff has not shown that the various treatments she received for different teeth groups were related to the same condition or injury, and thus part of a course of continuous treatment, especially in light of her inordinate delays between visits, unexcused failure to keep several appointments, and disregard of certain of defendant's instructions ( see, Coyne v Besser, 165 A.D.2d 857, 859, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 808; see also, Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 N.Y.2d 255, 259). If the gravamen of plaintiff's claim is that defendant failed to establish a course of treatment, then "we cannot accept the self-contradictory proposition that the failure to establish a course of treatment is a course of treatment" ( supra, at 259). Plaintiff is therefore barred by the two-year-and-six-month dental malpractice Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214-a) from pursuing any claims for treatment that occurred before October 29, 1990, the earliest treatment date within that period. We modify as indicated to correct an apparent inadvertence.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.