Heshin v. Levitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heshin v. Levitt

273 A.D.2d 442, 711 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7388

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

DecidedJune 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 442 (Heshin v. Levitt) 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

Heshin v. Levitt, 273 A.D.2d 442, 711 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated May 14, 1999, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based on medical malpractice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendants’ motions for, among other relief, summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice causes of action were supported by expert medical evidence establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). In opposing the motions, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit- of a medical expert. However, the affidavit failed to connect the factual assertions made therein to the plaintiffs’ claim other than in a conclusory [443]*443manner (see, Vogel v Palmieri, 221 AD2d 522, 523). Thus, the medical malpractice causes of action were properly dismissed. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated May 14, 1999, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based on medical malpractice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendants’ motions for, among other relief, summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice causes of action were supported by expert medical evidence establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). In opposing the motions, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit- of a medical expert. However, the affidavit failed to connect the factual assertions made therein to the plaintiffs’ claim other than in a conclusory [443]*443manner (see, Vogel v Palmieri, 221 AD2d 522, 523). Thus, the medical malpractice causes of action were properly dismissed. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 442, 711 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heshin-v-levitt-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack