Graber v. Zwanger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graber v. Zwanger

175 A.D.2d 911, 573 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11686

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

DecidedAugust 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 911 (Graber v. Zwanger) 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

Graber v. Zwanger, 175 A.D.2d 911, 573 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants John Whittier and Jules Rozanski appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated November 13, 1989, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it was asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The bare conclusory assertions by the movants that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices with respect to the treatment of the plaintiffs’ decedent, without any attempt to refute by specific factual reference the allegations of medical malpractice made in the bills of particulars, do not establish that the causes of action have no merit so as to entitle them to summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 326). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra). Fiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants John Whittier and Jules Rozanski appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated November 13, 1989, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it was asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The bare conclusory assertions by the movants that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices with respect to the treatment of the plaintiffs’ decedent, without any attempt to refute by specific factual reference the allegations of medical malpractice made in the bills of particulars, do not establish that the causes of action have no merit so as to entitle them to summary judgment (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 326). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra). Fiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 911, 573 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graber-v-zwanger-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack