Mills v. Moriarty

302 A.D.2d 436, 754 N.Y.S.2d 901
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 436 (Mills v. Moriarty) 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
Mills v. Moriarty, 302 A.D.2d 436, 754 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated November 8, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant Robert Moriarty and the separate motion of the defendant Huntington Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In support of their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the respondents tendered sufficient evidence in the form of affidavits from two medical experts, and other medical evidence, to demonstrate that the defendant Dr. Robert Moriarty was not negligent in prescribing Haldol to the plaintiff while she was a patient at the defendant Huntington Hospital. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the medication she suffered permanent memory loss (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325). In opposition to the motions, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affidavit from a nurse-practitioner. The nurse-practitioner, who was not a medical doctor, lacked the qualifications to render a medical opinion as to the relevant standard of care and whether the defendants had deviated from that standard (see LaMarque v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 227 AD2d 594; Douglass v Gibson, 218 AD2d 856, 857; [437]*437see also Brown v Soldiers & Sailors Mem. Hosp., 193 AD2d 1077). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact so as to defeat the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Altman, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Villani v. Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr.
2021 NY Slip Op 00244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Boltyansky v. New York Community Hosp.
2019 NY Slip Op 6738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
O'Connor v. Kingston Hosp.
2018 NY Slip Op 8207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Makinen v. Torelli
106 A.D.3d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Zak v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center
54 A.D.3d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Abalola v. Flower Hospital
44 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Harris v. Carella
42 A.D.3d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Collymore v. Montefiore Medical Center
39 A.D.3d 237 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Glasgow v. Chou
33 A.D.3d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Elliot v. Long Island Home, Ltd.
12 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Gottfried v. Loh
5 Misc. 3d 592 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 A.D.2d 436, 754 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-moriarty-nyappdiv-2003.