Hoovis v. Winthrop University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoovis v. Winthrop University Hospital

268 A.D.2d 409, 701 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 173

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 409 (Hoovis v. Winthrop 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

Hoovis v. Winthrop University Hospital, 268 A.D.2d 409, 701 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant third-party plaintiff Winthrop University Hospital appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated July 20, 1998, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the third-party defendants Nassau Anesthesia Associates, P. C., and Roger Shammas, M.D., separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

After the appellants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted ample evidence in support of her claim to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted in- opposition to the summary judgment motion is presumed to be true and is to be given the benefit of every favorable inference (see, Cortale v Educational Testing Serv., 251 AD2d 528; Rosen Furs v Sigma Plumbing & Heating Corp., 249 AD2d 276). Bracken, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant third-party plaintiff Winthrop University Hospital appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated July 20, 1998, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the third-party defendants Nassau Anesthesia Associates, P. C., and Roger Shammas, M.D., separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

After the appellants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted ample evidence in support of her claim to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence submitted in- opposition to the summary judgment motion is presumed to be true and is to be given the benefit of every favorable inference (see, Cortale v Educational Testing Serv., 251 AD2d 528; Rosen Furs v Sigma Plumbing & Heating Corp., 249 AD2d 276). Bracken, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 409, 701 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoovis-v-winthrop-university-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack