Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0774-25 ROBERT O'DONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DR. RACHNA BAJAJ, Defendant-Respondent, and SMILE A BIT, Defendant. ____________________________ ROBERT O'DONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DR. ANAHEATA ISMAILZADA, and DR. CHANDAN WALLA, Defendants, and DR. PRERNA JAIN, DR. GABE CORNICK, and DR. MANVEEN KAUR, Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________ Submitted October 22, 2026 – Decided November 2, 2026 Before Judges Mawla and Chase. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket Nos. L-2061-22 and L-0768-23. Manning Caliendo & Thomson, PA, attorneys for appellant (Vincent P. Manning, on the briefs). Farkas & Donohue, LLC, attorneys for respondents Dr. Rachna Bajaj, Dr. Prerna Jain, Dr. Gabe Cornick, and Dr. Manveen Kaur (David C. Donohue, of counsel; Robert G. Veech, III, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Robert O'Donnell appeals from two December 20, 2024 orders dismissing his malpractice claims against defendants Drs. Anaheata Esmailzada, improperly pled as "Ismailzada," Prerna Jain, Gabe Cornick, and Manveen Kaur, on statute of limitations grounds. He also appeals from a May 9, 2025 order granting defendant Dr. Rachna Bajaj summary judgment and a July 18, 2025 A-0774-25 2 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling. We affirm. Beginning November 1, 2018, plaintiff was a patient of Smile A Bit, a dental practice owned by Dr. Bajaj. From then until December 29, 2020, he was under the care of Drs. Bajaj; Esmailzada; Jain; Cornick; Kaur; and Chandan Walia, improperly pled as "Walla." On March 14, 2019, Dr. Jain performed a root canal on plaintiff's tooth number fourteen. On December 29, 2020, plaintiff complained to Dr. Kaur about pain near the root canal area. An x-ray revealed the root canal missed one root and three roots were infected. Plaintiff was prescribed antibiotics, and after consulting with a different dental practice, referred to an endodontist. The endodontist treated plaintiff on April 5, April 26, and May 3, 2021. Plaintiff claimed he learned of defendants' negligence during the May 3 visit. On November 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Bajaj and Smile A Bit. He sued Drs. Esmailzada; Jain; Walia; Cornick; and Kaur on May 1, 2023. On June 17, 2023, Smile A Bit was dismissed from the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The trial court subsequently consolidated the lawsuits against Dr. Bajaj and Drs. Esmailzada; Jain; Walia; Cornick; and Kaur . A-0774-25 3 Dr. Walia was dismissed from the case pursuant to a stipulation. On November 8, 2024, Dr. Esmailzada moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Three days later, Drs. Jain, Cornick, and Kaur moved to dismiss for the same reason. Dr. Esmailzada argued plaintiff's complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, because plaintiff was aware of the potential malpractice when he was treated with Dr. Cornick on June 11 and August 13, 2020, and on December 29, 2020, when he was advised the root needed retreatment and then referred to the endodontist. Plaintiff also had notice of the potential malpractice when the endodontist advised him about it on April 5, 2021. The motion judge made written findings and pointed out plaintiff failed to cite evidence in the record to contradict these facts. Plaintiff's certification and deposition only supported granting dismissal of his claims. The undisputed facts in the record showed, as of December 2020, plaintiff had persistent problems with tooth fourteen, was taking antibiotics for it, knew he had to have the root canal redone, and refused to return to Smile A Bit. The crown installed by Smile A Bit fell out, the endodontist told him it should not have, and plaintiff certified the endodontist told him Smile A Bit was negligent in April 2021. Therefore, A-0774-25 4 the judge concluded "no reasonable juror could conclude . . . [p]laintiff was reasonably unaware that he suffered an injury and [what was] the origin of that injury as of April 30, 2021." As to Drs. Jain, Cornick, and Kaur, the judge found Dr. Jain performed the root canal and did not see plaintiff after the March 14, 2019 procedure. Dr. Cornick last saw plaintiff on August 13, 2020, and Dr. Kaur last saw him on December 29, 2020. The judge concluded "[p]laintiff reasonably knew or should have known of the existence and origin of his injury as to his dental malpractice claims against [Drs.] Jain, Cornick[,] and Kaur as of April 21, 2021." Dr. Bajaj also moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The judge treated the motion as one for summary judgment because it relied upon materials outside the pleadings. As to Dr. Bajaj, the judge found it was undisputed she only saw plaintiff for a routine dental exam on February 11, 2020. Dr. Bajaj did not see plaintiff either before or after the root canal, and it was not her custom and practice to supervise her providers. Because the judge found plaintiff should have been aware of his injury on April 21, 2021, he concluded the claims brought against Dr. Bajaj on November 29, 2022, were timely. A-0774-25 5 There were also questions of fact, "including whether [Dr.] Bajaj failed to detect complications from the root canal" when she saw plaintiff after the procedure. A question of fact also existed about whether Dr. Bajaj had "an obligation to supervise the work of h[er] providers and deviated from the standard of care by failing to do so." On December 20, 2024, the judge entered two orders granting Dr. Esmailzada's and Drs. Jain, Cornick, and Kaur's respective motions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. The third order denied Dr. Bajaj's motion, leaving her as the sole defendant. Despite a lengthy discovery period and extensions granted by the judge for plaintiff to serve his expert report, plaintiff failed to do so. Dr. Bajaj moved for summary judgment on March 25, 2025. The judge's written findings pointed out the parties had more than 770 days of discovery and the final discovery end date was May 15, 2025. He recounted on June 5, 2024, he entered an order extending discovery for "approximately [seven] months and required . . . [p]laintiff serve his expert reports by October 15, 2024." The June 2024 order stated it was "unlikely" he would grant further discovery extensions given the lengthy extensions of discovery already granted. Nonetheless, plaintiff moved for an additional A-0774-25 6 extension of the deadline for his expert reports until March 15, 2025. The judge granted the extension again, noting he was unlikely to grant another one. His order admonished "[t]he parties [to] exercise extreme diligence in completing discovery in accordance with the [discovery] deadlines." The judge noted plaintiff did not oppose Dr. Bajaj's summary judgment motion. Instead, plaintiff requested an adjournment two days before the April 25, 2025 motion return date to May 9, 2025. The judge granted the adjournment. Plaintiff then requested another adjournment two days before the May 9, 2025 motion return date. The judge observed there was no indication of whether plaintiff engaged an expert or an explanation why a report was not yet served, despite the lapsed deadline for the expert report. As a result, the judge denied the second adjournment request on May 8, 2025. He entered an order granting Dr. Bajaj's motion for summary judgment the following day. Plaintiff served an expert report on June 5, 2025. On June 12, 2025, he moved for reconsideration of the order granting Dr. Bajaj summary judgment. He argued reconsideration was warranted under Rule 4:42-2, asserted he contacted his expert between April 30 and May 14, 2025, and had received the expert report on May 17, 2025. A-0774-25 7 The judge pointed out Rule 4:42-2 did not apply because when he granted Dr. Bajaj summary judgment, he dismissed all of plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Instead, Rule 4:49-2 applied and plaintiff was not entitled to reconsideration because he filed his motion twenty days after service of the May 9, 2025 order. Rule 1:3-4 prohibited the judge from extending the twenty-day time limitation under Rule 4:49-2. Beyond the procedural bar, the judge found no basis to grant reconsideration on a substantive basis either. This was because the judge had "based [his] decision upon [p]laintiff's failure to serve an expert report during the discovery period, despite numerous extensions thereof and repeated warnings that no further extensions would be granted." Plaintiff's reconsideration motion "failed to highlight any law" the judge "contravened or any facts [he] failed to consider in granting summary judgment." The judge denied the reconsideration motion on July 18, 2025. On September 25, 2025, by consent, he dismissed the claims against Smile A Bit with prejudice. I. On appeal, plaintiff argues dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is the most severe sanction available and the judge failed to consider whether there A-0774-25 8 was willful conduct, irreparable prejudice, and lesser sanctions available. Plaintiff asserts he retained an expert who signed an affidavit of merit. He requested an adjournment on the summary judgment motion to receive the expert's report, but it was delayed through no fault of plaintiff because the expert was traveling abroad. Plaintiff claims the with-prejudice dismissal was unwarranted because he could not pursue his claims without an expert. There was no prejudice against Dr. Bajaj because the court had not set a trial date. Plaintiff argues Rule 4:49-2 was inapplicable because the claim against Smile A Bit was not dismissed with prejudice until September 25, 2025. Instead, Rule 4:42-2 applied, which requires reconsideration in the interest of justice. Thus, the judge should have considered whether lesser sanctions were available and analyzed the proportionality of the sanction to the discovery violation, rather than arbitrarily and unreasonably terminating plaintiff's case. Plaintiff argues he did not learn about Smile A Bit's negligence until he consulted with the second dental office on May 3, 2021. Therefore, his November 29, 2022 complaint against Smile A Bit and Dr. Bajaj, and the May 1, 2023 complaint against the other providers were timely. Regardless, plaintiff asserts the judge could not determine whether the statute of limitation was tolled by the discovery rule on summary judgment. Even so, the judge improperly A-0774-25 9 placed emphasis on the plaintiff's awareness of the origin of the injury rather than his knowledge of who was at fault. II. We review the grant or denial of reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. R. 4:49-2; Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021). "[A] trial court's reconsideration decision will be left undisturbed unless it represents a clear abuse of discretion." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015) (citing Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994)). "The rule applies when the court's decision represents a clear abuse of discretion based on plainly incorrect reasoning or failure to consider evidence or a good reason for the court to reconsider new information." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2 on R. 4:49-2 (2026) (citing Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 301- 02 (2020)). A. Reconsideration is appropriate "for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either [(]1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or [(]2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent A-0774-25 10 evidence." Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). A motion for reconsideration "provides the court, and not the litigant, with an opportunity to take a second bite at the apple to correct errors inherent in a prior ruling." Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1, 18 (App. Div. 2015). The motion should "state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred." Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting R. 4:49-2). "And, the magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 289. Similarly, "[a] trial court's discovery rulings are 'entitled to substantial deference.'" Kronfeld v. Malone, 482 N.J. Super. 474, 485 (App. Div. 2025) (quoting DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212, 228 (2023)). Under this standard of review "[w]e 'generally defer to a trial court's disposition of discovery matters unless the court has abused its discretion[,] or its determination is based on a mistaken understanding of the applicable law.'" Id. at 485 (second alteration in original) (quoting Rivers v. LSC P'ship, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 80 (App. Div. 2005)). A-0774-25 11 "It is well-settled expert testimony is generally required in [professional] malpractice cases." Id. at 490 (citing Buchanan v. Leonard, 428 N.J. Super. 277, 288 (App. Div. 2012)). A plaintiff's malpractice claim cannot proceed without expert testimony and, as a result, will fail as a matter of law. Ibid. Pursuant to these principles, we conclude the motion judge appropriately exercised his discretion when he denied reconsideration of the summary judgment granted in favor of Dr. Bajaj dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because of the late expert report. The parties had more than two years to conduct discovery and numerous discovery extensions, yet plaintiff failed to produce an expert report. Even when plaintiff received the expert report two days after the close of discovery on May 17, 2025, he failed to serve it until June 5, 2025, and provided no reason for the delay. The expert's travel abroad was not an excuse for failing to file a report given the substantial discovery period provided by the court and the numerous extensions given to serve the expert report. See Feinsod v. Noon, 272 N.J. Super. 248, 250, 253 (App. Div. 1994) (affirming dismissal of a complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant's interrogatories for over sixteen months.) In Kronfeld, we upheld summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a legal malpractice action when the plaintiff failed to serve an A-0774-25 12 expert report by the end of discovery. 482 N.J. Super. at 483, 488. There, the plaintiff filed seven motions to extend discovery and still failed to file her expert report by the close of discovery. Id. at 482-3. We observed, although the plaintiff's attorney had a medical condition, the trial court did not disregard the condition as an exceptional circumstance and in fact made several attempts to accommodate counsel. Id. at 488. Conversely, in Tucci v. Tropicana Casino & Resort, Inc., we reversed a dismissal with prejudice due to a late expert report. 364 N.J. Super. 48, 54 (App. Div. 2003). There, the plaintiffs served their expert report thirty-nine days late. Id. at 50. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Id. at 51. On appeal, we held while "the late service of the expert report by plaintiffs might have resulted in some appropriate sanction . . . the case would not and should not have been dismissed with prejudice." Id. at 51-52. This was because plaintiffs did not act willfully or intend to mislead the court in their delay in serving their expert report. Id. at 52. In fact, the defendant's own late submission of records to the plaintiffs contributed to the delay in serving their expert report. Ibid. Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel "had a good and sufficient reason" contributing to the delay as "critical litigation events" were unfolding, namely, "his mother's terminal illness and her demise." Id. at 51-52. A-0774-25 13 The facts here align with Feinsod and Kronfeld. Plaintiff had the benefit of over 770 days of discovery and failed to meet every deadline given for serving his expert report. The motion judge's orders extending discovery admonished plaintiff to serve the expert report because discovery would not likely be further extended, to no avail. Dr. Bajaj did not contribute to the delay and instead moved for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint, which in the normal course would spur plaintiff into action, yet he still failed to serve an expert report or oppose the summary judgment motion. B. In general, an order granting summary judgment "is considered final if it disposes of all issues as to all parties." Silviera-Francisco v. Bd. of Educ. of Elizabeth, 224 N.J. 126, 136 (2016). "Thus, in a multi-party, multi-issue case, an order granting summary judgment, dismissing all claims against one of several defendants, is not a final order . . . until all claims against the remaining defendants have been resolved by motion or entry of a judgment following a trial." Ibid. (citing McGlynn v. State, 434 N.J. Super. 23, 29 (App. Div. 2014)). The motion judge properly denied reconsideration. Plaintiff never moved to reinstate Smile A Bit after it was dismissed without prejudice from the case for lack of prosecution. R. 1:13-7(a). Dr. Bajaj was the last remaining A-0774-25 14 defendant, evidenced by the fact plaintiff consented to the dismissal of Smile A Bit with prejudice. Thus, by granting her summary judgment, all the claims in plaintiff's complaint were resolved. Notwithstanding Rule 4:49-2, the revision of a ruling under Rule 4:42- 2(b) is subject to "the sound discretion of the court in the interest of justice ." The facts in the record do not convince us the motion judge either abused his discretion or acted against the interest of justice. III. Finally, we affirm the motion judge's ruling regarding the applicability of the statute of limitations to bar plaintiff's claims against Drs. Esmailzada; Jain; Walia; Cornick; and Kaur substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion. The record amply supports his finding that by April 2021, at the latest, plaintiff knew, or could have discovered through reasonable diligence, he had suffered injuries forming the basis of a malpractice claim. Plaintiff's arguments otherwise lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. A-0774-25 15