The Vitagliano Orthodontics lawsuit was a breach of contract case filed in October 2022 by Large Practice Sales, LLC against Joseph M. Vitagliano, D.M.D., P.C., Dr. Joseph M. Vitagliano individually, and Vitagliano Orthodontics of Massapequa PLLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case, docketed as Large Practice Sales, LLC v. Vitagliano, No. 2:22-cv-06040, accused the defendants of breaching an “Engagement Agreement” with the plaintiff. It didn’t last long. Large Practice Sales voluntarily dismissed the complaint on December 1, 2022, and the court closed the case the next day.1CourtListener. Large Practice Sales LLC v. Vitagliano, 2:22-cv-06040
Who Sued Vitagliano Orthodontics
Large Practice Sales is a Texas-based transaction advisory firm that helps dental practices sell ownership stakes to larger dental organizations. Under the model it markets, a bigger firm buys a majority interest in a practice while the original dentist stays on, keeps the brand, and retains some equity. The firm was founded by Chip Fichtner in 2016 and says it has facilitated hundreds of these deals across dental specialties, orthodontics included. According to the company, it is paid by its dentist clients rather than by the purchasing organizations.2Large Practice Sales. Large Practice Sales Homepage
The defendant side of the caption covered three related entities and individuals: Vitagliano Orthodontics of Massapequa PLLC, a Long Island orthodontic practice; the professional corporation Joseph M. Vitagliano, D.M.D., P.C.; and Dr. Vitagliano personally.1CourtListener. Large Practice Sales LLC v. Vitagliano, 2:22-cv-06040
What the Complaint Alleged
Large Practice Sales filed its complaint on October 7, 2022, invoking federal diversity jurisdiction and pleading a single claim for breach of contract. The complaint attached the Engagement Agreement between the parties as an exhibit, but the specific terms of that agreement and the dollar amount the firm was seeking are not visible on the public docket.1CourtListener. Large Practice Sales LLC v. Vitagliano, 2:22-cv-06040
An engagement agreement in this line of work would typically govern the advisor’s scope of services, its fee or commission, and any exclusivity provisions. Breach of contract suits by dental advisory firms against practice clients commonly arise when a client backs out of a planned transaction, closes a deal without the advisor’s involvement, or fails to pay an agreed fee. The public filings don’t say which of these scenarios applied to Vitagliano, only that Large Practice Sales believed the agreement had been broken.
How the Case Ended
The docket shows almost no substantive activity. Summonses were issued on October 11, 2022, and returned as served on all three defendants two days later. No answer, counterclaim, or motion to dismiss was ever filed. On December 1, Large Practice Sales filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the court entered an order dismissing the case the following day.3CourtListener. Large Practice Sales LLC v. Vitagliano – Parties
The docket doesn’t say why. A voluntary dismissal that comes this early, before any responsive pleading, can reflect a private settlement, a decision to pursue arbitration, or simply the plaintiff’s choice to drop the matter. Neither side has publicly disclosed what happened. The case has stayed closed since December 2022.
Earlier Litigation Against the Same Practice
This wasn’t the first lawsuit involving Dr. Vitagliano’s practice. In 2006, Debra J. Morello, a former office manager at Joseph M. Vitagliano, D.M.D., P.C., sued the practice in Suffolk County Supreme Court for breach of contract. Morello pointed to a 2002 written employment agreement that, she said, guaranteed her a job “as long as he is in business” so long as the working relationship remained “mutually agreeable.” She alleged the practice breached that agreement when it fired her in February 2006.4CaseMine. Morello v. Vitagliano, 0015388/2006
The court dismissed the breach of contract claim in October 2007. It read the “mutually agreeable” language as making the arrangement at-will rather than an enforceable guarantee of continued employment, and it treated the termination itself as evidence that the relationship was no longer mutually agreeable.4CaseMine. Morello v. Vitagliano, 0015388/2006
Morello also asked to amend her complaint to add a retaliatory firing claim under New York Labor Law ยง 741, alleging she had been terminated for objecting to office practices she believed compromised patient care. The court denied that request. It found that an office manager did not qualify as a “health care provider” protected by the statute, and that her allegations about patient care were too general to meet the law’s requirement of a “substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”4CaseMine. Morello v. Vitagliano, 0015388/2006
Neither the 2006 Morello case nor the 2022 Large Practice Sales case involved allegations about orthodontic treatment or patient care outcomes. Both were commercial disputes over written agreements, and both ended without a ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs’ central contract claims.