AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

VLADYMIR MENDEZ, ETC., et al., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., defendants, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, appellant.

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 defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter NYCHHC) established through medical records and competent expert affidavits that it did not deviate or depart from accepted medical practice in its treatment of the plaintiffs (see Estate of Mollo v. Rothman, 284 A.D.2d 299; Berger v. Becker, 272 A.D.2d 565; Amsler v. Verrilli, 119 A.D.2d 786). Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that it made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to present competent evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320) . "General allegations of medical malpractice, merely conclusory in nature and unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the essential elements of the claim, are insufficient to defeat" a motion for summary judgment (Holbrook v. United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 248 A.D.2d 358). The expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that NYCHHC departed from an accepted standard of care in its treatment of them (see Yasin v. Manhattan Eye, Ear Throat Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 281; Domaradzki v. Glen Cove Ob/Gyn Assocs., 242 A.D.2d 282; Gross v. Friedman, 138 A.D.2d 571, affd 73 N.Y.2d 721). The affidavit contained only bare conclusory allegations and assumed facts not supported by the evidence (see Alicea v. Tuerk, 271 A.D.2d 557; Kaplan v. Hamilton Med. Assoc., 262 A.D.2d 609; Tucker v. Elimelech, 184 A.D.2d 636). Even assuming that NYCHHC breached this standard of care, there is no evidence that the breach was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, as the plaintiffs failed to rebut NYCHHC's prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as asserted against it.

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MENDEZ v. CITY OF NEW YORK
(Jun 18, 2002)