Kukic v. Grand

84 A.D.3d 609, 924 N.Y.S.2d 50
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 609 (Kukic v. Grand) 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
Kukic v. Grand, 84 A.D.3d 609, 924 N.Y.S.2d 50 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J), entered February 1, 2010, dismissing the complaint against defendants Steven J. Colucci, M.D., George M. Amilo, M.D., and St. Barnabas Hospital, and bringing up for review an order, same court and justice, entered January 27, 2010, which granted those defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. [610]*610Appeal from the above order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The motion court correctly found that Drs. Colucci and Amilo established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting medical experts’ affidavits opining that their treatment of plaintiff Biber Kukic comported with good and accepted medical practice, and that Kukic’s jump from a window while under one-to-one supervision was neither foreseeable nor proximately caused by any departures or deviations in the standard of care by either doctor.

As there is no liability for plaintiffs injuries against Colucci, Amilo, and the other physician defendants previously dismissed from this action, there can be no vicarious liability for plaintiffs injuries against the hospital (Lopez v Master, 58 AD3d 425 [2009], citing Magriz v St. Barnabas Hosp., 43 AD3d 331 [2007], lv denied in part and dismissed in part 10 NY3d 790 [2008]; Bertini v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 279 AD2d 492 [2001]). In any event, the opinions in plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation identifying the manner in which the hospital staff deviated from good and accepted medical practice are speculative and wholly unsupported by the record (see DeFilippo v New York Downtown Hosp., 10 AD3d 521 [2004]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

Related

Pepen v. Lascano
2024 NY Slip Op 05651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Wicks v. Virk
2021 NY Slip Op 05209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Viera v. Khasdan
2020 NY Slip Op 3717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
A a v. St. Barnabas Hosp.
2019 NY Slip Op 7695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Smith v. Watkins
2016 NY Slip Op 8604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Polgano v. Christakos
104 A.D.3d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 A.D.3d 609, 924 N.Y.S.2d 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kukic-v-grand-nyappdiv-2011.