DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
An issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant, who was initially used by the plaintiff's treating physicians as a consulting physician, undertook to treat the plaintiff, thereby creating a physician-patient relationship (see, Bienz v. Central Suffolk Hosp., 163 A.D.2d 269 ). Furthermore, assuming the existence of a physician -patient relationship, there are issues of fact as to whether any care provided by the appellant to the plaintiff departed from good and accepted medical practice, and as to whether any such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see, McDonnell v. Chelsea Mfrs., 259 A.D.2d 674 ).