ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
To recover damages for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant deviated or departed from accepted medical practice and that such deviation or departure proximately caused injury or damage (see, Holbrook v. United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 248 A.D.2d 358; Cahill v. County of Westchester, 226 A.D.2d 571; Bloom v. City of New York, 202 A.D.2d 465).
Where, as here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff was required to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Holbrook v. United Hosp. Med. Ctr., supra; Cahill v. County of Westchester, supra). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to do so. The affidavits of the plaintiff's medical expert submitted in opposition to the motion contained merely conclusory allegations that were unsupported by any competent evidence (see, Fhima v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 269 A.D.2d 559; James v. Crystal, 267 A.D.2d 429).
S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.