Jordan v. Raccuglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jordan v. Raccuglia

137 A.D.3d 443, 25 N.Y.S.3d 623

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2016

Docket374 400186/13

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 443 (Jordan v. Raccuglia) 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

Jordan v. Raccuglia, 137 A.D.3d 443, 25 N.Y.S.3d 623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger J.), entered on or about March 12, 2015, which granted defendant Dr. Maria Raccuglia’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*444 Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an expert’s affirmation, showing that her treatment of plaintiff was within good and accepted medical practice and was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728 [1st Dept 2012]). The record shows that blood tests revealed that plaintiff tested positive for a virus and defendant prescribed an appropriate medication.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although subsequent blood tests showed that she did not suffer from the subject virus, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any of her alleged injuries were caused by the medication that defendant prescribed. Rather, the evidence showed that plaintiff did not take the dosage of medication that was prescribed, that she suffered from her headaches prior to being prescribed the medication and that her other alleged injuries were unrelated to the medication (see e.g. Pullman v Silverman, 125 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept

2015]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger J.), entered on or about March 12, 2015, which granted defendant Dr. Maria Raccuglia’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*444 Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an expert’s affirmation, showing that her treatment of plaintiff was within good and accepted medical practice and was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728 [1st Dept 2012]). The record shows that blood tests revealed that plaintiff tested positive for a virus and defendant prescribed an appropriate medication.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although subsequent blood tests showed that she did not suffer from the subject virus, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any of her alleged injuries were caused by the medication that defendant prescribed. Rather, the evidence showed that plaintiff did not take the dosage of medication that was prescribed, that she suffered from her headaches prior to being prescribed the medication and that her other alleged injuries were unrelated to the medication (see e.g. Pullman v Silverman, 125 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept

2015]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 443, 25 N.Y.S.3d 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-raccuglia-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack