Bertles v. Rubino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bertles v. Rubino

266 A.D.2d 419, 698 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12061

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 419 (Bertles v. Rubino) 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

Bertles v. Rubino, 266 A.D.2d 419, 698 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sidney D. Harvey appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered December 7, 1998, as, upon reargument of his prior cross motion for summary judgment which was granted by an order of the same court, entered July 27, 1998, denied the cross motion.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, denied the appellant’s cross motion and substituting therefor a provision adhering to so much of the prior order as granted the appellant’s cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Sidney D. Harvey, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The general allegations of negligence set forth by the plaintiffs’ expert were conclusory and unsupported by evidence, and thus insufficient to defeat the appellant’s cross motion in which he made out a prima facie case for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Rosado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 412; Guida v Hsu, 187 AD2d 485). Further, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a doctor/patient relationship so as to impose liability on the appellant (cf., Heller v Peekskill Community Hosp., 198 AD2d 265). Thompson, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sidney D. Harvey appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered December 7, 1998, as, upon reargument of his prior cross motion for summary judgment which was granted by an order of the same court, entered July 27, 1998, denied the cross motion.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, denied the appellant’s cross motion and substituting therefor a provision adhering to so much of the prior order as granted the appellant’s cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Sidney D. Harvey, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The general allegations of negligence set forth by the plaintiffs’ expert were conclusory and unsupported by evidence, and thus insufficient to defeat the appellant’s cross motion in which he made out a prima facie case for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Rosado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 412; Guida v Hsu, 187 AD2d 485). Further, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a doctor/patient relationship so as to impose liability on the appellant (cf., Heller v Peekskill Community Hosp., 198 AD2d 265). Thompson, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 419, 698 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertles-v-rubino-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack