Bunk v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bunk v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown

244 A.D.2d 862, 668 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1997·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment but erred in granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. “On a motion for summary judgment, the court should accept as true the evidence submitted by the opposing party and any evidence of the movant which favors the opposing party” (O’Sullivan v Presbyterian [863] Hosp., 217 AD2d 98, 101). In granting plaintiffs’ cross motion, the court erroneously disregarded the opinion of defendant’s expert, which was supported by entries in the medical records of plaintiff Fay Bunk. Defendant thereby raised an issue of fact precluding summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Therefore, we modify the order by denying plaintiffs’ cross motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment but erred in granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. “On a motion for summary judgment, the court should accept as true the evidence submitted by the opposing party and any evidence of the movant which favors the opposing party” (O’Sullivan v Presbyterian [863] Hosp., 217 AD2d 98, 101). In granting plaintiffs’ cross motion, the court erroneously disregarded the opinion of defendant’s expert, which was supported by entries in the medical records of plaintiff Fay Bunk. Defendant thereby raised an issue of fact precluding summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Therefore, we modify the order by denying plaintiffs’ cross motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Bunk v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown, 244 A.D.2d 862, 668 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

244 A.D.2d 862 (Bunk v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related