DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The appellant made out a prima facie case that his conduct did not constitute malpractice through the affirmations of Drs. Donna Mendes and Lawrence Kobak ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). In opposition, the affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs of their undisclosed expert merely stated in conclusory terms that the appellant's failure to consult with the injured plaintiff's vascular specialist exacerbated the injured plaintiff's condition. Moreover, it failed to address the contentions of the appellant's experts. Thus, it was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment ( see Kaplan v. Hamilton Med. Assocs., 262 A.D.2d 609; Fhima v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 269 A.D.2d 559; Yasin v. Manhattan Eye, Ear Throat Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 281).
SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.