Marone v. Gopinathan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marone v. Gopinathan

267 A.D.2d 216, 699 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12519

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 216 (Marone v. Gopinathan) 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

Marone v. Gopinathan, 267 A.D.2d 216, 699 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 20, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant Govindan Gopinathan for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Govindan Gopinathan established his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him as a matter of law. The conclusory allegation of the plaintiffs expert that Gopinathan, a neurologist, misled subsequent doctors by misdiagnosing the plaintiffs pulmonary condition was unsupported by evidence tending to establish the essential elements of malpractice and thus was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Rosado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 412; Guida v Hsu, 187 AD2d 485; Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378; Kane v City of New York, 137 AD2d 658, 660). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Florio and Smith, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 20, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant Govindan Gopinathan for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Govindan Gopinathan established his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him as a matter of law. The conclusory allegation of the plaintiffs expert that Gopinathan, a neurologist, misled subsequent doctors by misdiagnosing the plaintiffs pulmonary condition was unsupported by evidence tending to establish the essential elements of malpractice and thus was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Rosado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 412; Guida v Hsu, 187 AD2d 485; Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378; Kane v City of New York, 137 AD2d 658, 660). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 216, 699 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marone-v-gopinathan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack