Masotto v. Leddy

18 A.D.3d 452, 794 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 452 (Masotto v. Leddy) 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
Masotto v. Leddy, 18 A.D.3d 452, 794 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated July 14, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to timely diagnose the plaintiff Peter Masotto (hereinafter Masotto) with esophageal cancer. The defendants made a prima facie showing that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice in treating Masotto (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The defendants’ submissions demonstrated that Masotto’s complaints and physical manifestations were not symptoms of esophageal cancer, and that he was properly treated. In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs submitted an expert affirmation which, inter alia, stated that since Masotto complained of vomiting, the defendants’ course of treatment was deficient. However, as noted by the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs did not apprise the defendants of any vomiting complaints during the time period at issue. Accordingly, as the [453]*453affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert assumed facts which were not supported by the evidence, and since it did not otherwise demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding the defendants’ alleged deviation from good and accepted medical practice, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Krash v Bishop-Sanzari, J.V., 309 AD2d 788, 789 [2003]; Kaplan v Hamilton Med. Assoc., 262 AD2d 609, 610 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Moore v. New York Medical Group, P.C.
44 A.D.3d 393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.3d 452, 794 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masotto-v-leddy-nyappdiv-2005.