Avila v. Garais

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avila v. Garais

45 A.D.3d 278, 843 N.Y.S.2d 832

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 278 (Avila v. Garais) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avila v. Garais, 45 A.D.3d 278, 843 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 31, 2006, which granted defendant Garais’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dr. Garais owed no duty of care to the infant plaintiffs with respect to lead-poison screening, assessment or treatment (see Huffman v Linkow Inst, for Advanced Implantology, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Maxillo-Facial Surgery, 35 AD3d 214 [2006]; see also Bettencourt v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 306 AD2d 425 [279]*279[2003]). The record reveals that she treated these children only for minor illnesses—the kind their mother described as “emergencies”—and that their regular pediatrician treated them for the lead poisoning. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 31, 2006, which granted defendant Garais’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dr. Garais owed no duty of care to the infant plaintiffs with respect to lead-poison screening, assessment or treatment (see Huffman v Linkow Inst, for Advanced Implantology, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Maxillo-Facial Surgery, 35 AD3d 214 [2006]; see also Bettencourt v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 306 AD2d 425 [279]*279[2003]). The record reveals that she treated these children only for minor illnesses—the kind their mother described as “emergencies”—and that their regular pediatrician treated them for the lead poisoning. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 278, 843 N.Y.S.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avila-v-garais-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack