Fargo v. South Island Orthopaedic Group, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fargo v. South Island Orthopaedic Group, P.C.

303 A.D.2d 447, 755 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 447 (Fargo v. South Island Orthopaedic Group, P.C.) 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

Fargo v. South Island Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 303 A.D.2d 447, 755 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 22, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants established a prima facie case through the affirmation of their expert witness that the treatment provided to the plaintiff fell within accepted standards of orthopedic care (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Pick v Hodes, 298 AD2d 489, 490 [2002]; Eisen v Mather Mem. Hosp., 278 AD2d 272 [2000]; Heshin v Levitt, 273 AD2d 442 [2000]; O’Shaughnessy v Hines, 248 AD2d 687, 688 [1998]). The affirmation of the plaintiff’s expert submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Pick v Hodes, supra; Ventura v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 297 AD2d 801, 803 [2002]; Wilson v Buffa, 294 AD2d 357, 358 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 611 [2002]; O’Shaughnessy v Hines, supra).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Rivera, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 22, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants established a prima facie case through the affirmation of their expert witness that the treatment provided to the plaintiff fell within accepted standards of orthopedic care (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Pick v Hodes, 298 AD2d 489, 490 [2002]; Eisen v Mather Mem. Hosp., 278 AD2d 272 [2000]; Heshin v Levitt, 273 AD2d 442 [2000]; O’Shaughnessy v Hines, 248 AD2d 687, 688 [1998]). The affirmation of the plaintiff’s expert submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Pick v Hodes, supra; Ventura v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 297 AD2d 801, 803 [2002]; Wilson v Buffa, 294 AD2d 357, 358 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 611 [2002]; O’Shaughnessy v Hines, supra).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 447, 755 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fargo-v-south-island-orthopaedic-group-pc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack