Breitman v. Dennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breitman v. Dennett

77 A.D.3d 498, 910 N.Y.S.2d 51

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 498 (Breitman v. Dennett) 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

Breitman v. Dennett, 77 A.D.3d 498, 910 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered December 21, 2009, which, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant dermatologist failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action alleging medical malpractice. Defendant submitted an affidavit which stated that during his treatment of plaintiff, he did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices. However, it failed to address plaintiffs essential factual allegations, namely, whether the keloid defendant treated was or was not the same lesion that proved to be cancerous (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Kotler v Swersky, 10 AD3d 350 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered December 21, 2009, which, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant dermatologist failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action alleging medical malpractice. Defendant submitted an affidavit which stated that during his treatment of plaintiff, he did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices. However, it failed to address plaintiffs essential factual allegations, namely, whether the keloid defendant treated was or was not the same lesion that proved to be cancerous (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Kotler v Swersky, 10 AD3d 350 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 498, 910 N.Y.S.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breitman-v-dennett-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack