Logan v. Cardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Logan v. Cardi

202 A.D.2d 355, 616 N.Y.S.2d 181

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 355 (Logan v. Cardi) 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

Logan v. Cardi, 202 A.D.2d 355, 616 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Alan Oshrin, J.), entered on or about December 30, 1991, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant Dr. Cardi’s affidavits in support of his cross motion, while substantiating the appropriateness of a cone biopsy, are bare and conclusory and insufficient to preclude liability as a matter of law with respect to plaintiff’s claim that excessive tissue was removed during that procedure necessitating further surgical procedures during her pregnancy. Having failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Alan Oshrin, J.), entered on or about December 30, 1991, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant Dr. Cardi’s affidavits in support of his cross motion, while substantiating the appropriateness of a cone biopsy, are bare and conclusory and insufficient to preclude liability as a matter of law with respect to plaintiff’s claim that excessive tissue was removed during that procedure necessitating further surgical procedures during her pregnancy. Having failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 355, 616 N.Y.S.2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-cardi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack