Cupelli v. Lawrence Hospital

71 A.D.3d 496, 895 N.Y.S.2d 818
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 16, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 496 (Cupelli v. Lawrence Hospital) 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
Cupelli v. Lawrence Hospital, 71 A.D.3d 496, 895 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered December 12, 2008, which, in an action for medical malpractice, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that malpractice was committed in defendant Lawrence Hospital’s emergency room (ER) by one of its ER physicians and by defendant Dr. Provenzano, who had been plaintiffs long-time primary care physician and who came to the ER in response to a call from the treating ER physician; plaintiff also alleges additional malpractice by Dr. Provenzano in a follow-up visit in his office three days later. The only reference in plaintiffs expert’s affirmation to Dr. Provenzano states that “[a] note appears in the [hospital] records that [the ER physician] discussed the case with Dr. Provenzano.” As such affirmation simply does not address the medical evidence and opinion contained in Dr. Provenzano’s expert’s affirmation, the prima facie sufficiency of which is clear and indeed not challenged by plaintiff on appeal, no issues of fact are raised as to Dr. Provenzano’s malpractice. Similarly, plaintiffs expert’s affi[497]*497davit simply does not address defendant’s expert’s opinion that the ER physician acted in accordance with accepted standards of emergency medicine by deferring to Dr. Provenzano, who conducted his own examination of plaintiff upon arriving at the ER and otherwise took over plaintiffs emergency care and treatment (see Cregan v Sachs, 65 AD3d 101, 110 [2009] [how long after procedure doctor’s duty of care to patient continues is an issue of fact that turns on expert testimony]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Sassen v. Lazar
105 A.D.3d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 496, 895 N.Y.S.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cupelli-v-lawrence-hospital-nyappdiv-2010.