McNamara v. Droesch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNamara v. Droesch

49 A.D.3d 511, 855 N.Y.2d 555

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 511 (McNamara v. Droesch) 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

McNamara v. Droesch, 49 A.D.3d 511, 855 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Where a fraud claim gives rise to damages which are not separate and distinct from those flowing from an alleged medical malpractice cause of action, it must be dismissed (see Bellera v Handler, 284 AD2d 488, 490 [2001]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the cause of action alleging fraud, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the injuries arising from the alleged fraud differed from those caused by the alleged malpractice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging fraud. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Where a fraud claim gives rise to damages which are not separate and distinct from those flowing from an alleged medical malpractice cause of action, it must be dismissed (see Bellera v Handler, 284 AD2d 488, 490 [2001]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the cause of action alleging fraud, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the injuries arising from the alleged fraud differed from those caused by the alleged malpractice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging fraud. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 511, 855 N.Y.2d 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-droesch-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack