SHEENAN-CONRADES v. WINIFRED MASTERSON

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury or damage ( see Rebozo v Wilen, 41 AD3d 457, 458; Thompson v Orner, 36 AD3d 791, 791-792). The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by the submission of extensive medical records and two expert affidavits, both of which opined, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that neither the defendant Winifred Masterson Burke Rehabilitation Hospital nor the defendant Sudhir Vaidya, departed from the accepted standard of care ( see Shahid v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 800; Thompson v Orner, 36 AD3d at 792).

In opposition, the vague and conclusory allegations contained in the affidavit of the plaintiffs medical expert were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325; Shahid v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 800; Thompson v Orner, 36 AD3d 791; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420, 421).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.