Denenberg v. North Shore University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Denenberg v. North Shore University Hospital

292 A.D.2d 493, 739 N.Y.S.2d 191, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3015

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 493 (Denenberg v. North Shore University 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

Denenberg v. North Shore University Hospital, 292 A.D.2d 493, 739 N.Y.S.2d 191, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant North Shore Anesthesia Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated June 26, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Cara Denenberg allegedly suffered an epidural abscess, which was diagnosed on January 28, 1995. Denenberg alleged that the condition was caused by the negligent actions of an anesthesiologist associated with the appellant during the course of a procedure performed on January 19, 1994. The bill of particulars contains vague allegations concerning the use of unsanitary equipment during the course of that procedure. In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the appellant submitted admissible evidence establishing that the anesthesiologist followed standard procedure, and that no causal link existed between any alleged negligence that might have occurred during the January 1994 procedure [494]*494and Denenberg’s subsequent injuries. In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted a brief affidavit from a neurologist, who asserted nothing more than wholly conclusory allegations devoid of evidentiary value. Therefore, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it should have been granted (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Prudenti, P.J., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, 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 defendant North Shore Anesthesia Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated June 26, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Cara Denenberg allegedly suffered an epidural abscess, which was diagnosed on January 28, 1995. Denenberg alleged that the condition was caused by the negligent actions of an anesthesiologist associated with the appellant during the course of a procedure performed on January 19, 1994. The bill of particulars contains vague allegations concerning the use of unsanitary equipment during the course of that procedure. In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the appellant submitted admissible evidence establishing that the anesthesiologist followed standard procedure, and that no causal link existed between any alleged negligence that might have occurred during the January 1994 procedure [494]*494and Denenberg’s subsequent injuries. In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted a brief affidavit from a neurologist, who asserted nothing more than wholly conclusory allegations devoid of evidentiary value. Therefore, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it should have been granted (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Prudenti, P.J., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 493, 739 N.Y.S.2d 191, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denenberg-v-north-shore-university-hospital-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack