The motion court correctly held that plaintiff failed to adduce competent evidence sufficient to rebut defendants' prima facie showing, based on relevant medical records, deposition testimony and detailed expert affirmations, of plaintiffs informed consent and defendants' adherence to accepted standards of medical practice ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Ramirez v Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 16 AD3d 238). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.