Cai Qiang Li v. Yang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cai Qiang Li v. Yang

36 A.D.3d 642, 826 N.Y.S.2d 586

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 642 (Cai Qiang Li v. Yang) 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

Cai Qiang Li v. Yang, 36 A.D.3d 642, 826 N.Y.S.2d 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated October 17, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it contained only conclusory and unsupported allegations (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P, Santucci, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated October 17, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it contained only conclusory and unsupported allegations (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P, Santucci, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 642, 826 N.Y.S.2d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cai-qiang-li-v-yang-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack