Chervin v. Finkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chervin v. Finkel

22 A.D.3d 349, 801 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 349 (Chervin v. Finkel) 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

Chervin v. Finkel, 22 A.D.3d 349, 801 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J), entered July 19, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[350]*350While plaintiff, in response to defendant dentist’s prima facie showing of entitlement to the sought relief, raised triable issues as to whether there had, in the course of her treatment by defendant, been departures from good and accepted dental practice, her evidence was insufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether the alleged departures resulted in injury (see Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 369 [2004]). Plaintiff did not present competent evidence respecting the nature of her claimed injuries, and her expert’s unexplained, conclusory assertions that the alleged negligence was injurious were inadequate to sustain the action (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, 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 (Joan B. Carey, J), entered July 19, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[350]*350While plaintiff, in response to defendant dentist’s prima facie showing of entitlement to the sought relief, raised triable issues as to whether there had, in the course of her treatment by defendant, been departures from good and accepted dental practice, her evidence was insufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether the alleged departures resulted in injury (see Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 369 [2004]). Plaintiff did not present competent evidence respecting the nature of her claimed injuries, and her expert’s unexplained, conclusory assertions that the alleged negligence was injurious were inadequate to sustain the action (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 349, 801 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chervin-v-finkel-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack