ZIMMERLY v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Craig L. Smestad, s/h/a Craig L. Smestat (hereinafter Dr. Smestad) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. "[I]t is generally recognized that liability for medical malpractice may not be imposed in the absence of a physician-patient relationship" ( Megally v. LaPorta, 253 A.D.2d 35, 40; see, Finnegan v. Devries, 235 A.D.2d 454; Ellis v. Peter, 211 A.D.2d 353, 355; Lee v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 34, 36). Such a relationship "is created when the professional services of a physician are rendered to and accepted by another for the purposes of medical or surgical treatment" ( Lee v. City of New York, supra, at 36; see, Miller v. Sullivan, 214 A.D.2d 822, 823).

In the instant case, Dr. Smestad established that there was no physician-patient relationship between himself and the decedent and, accordingly, that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Leon v. Southside Hosp., 227 A.D.2d 384, 385; Ingber v. Kandler, 128 A.D.2d 591). In opposition to Dr. Smestad's motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.