Mitchell v. Lam
This text of 162 N.Y.S.3d 815 (Mitchell v. Lam) 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.
Opinion
| Mitchell v Lam |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 01929 |
| Decided on March 18, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on March 18, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
263 CA 21-00612
v
PO N. LAM, M.D., AND ASSOCIATED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS OF NY, PLLC, ALSO KNOWN AS A.M.P., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
GALE GALE & HUNT, LLC, SYRACUSE (ANDREW R. BORELLI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
COTE & VAN DYKE, LLP, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH S. COTE, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Robert E. Antonacci, II, J.), entered April 1, 2021. The order denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the cross motion and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, defendants appeal from an order that denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and that granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability on his informed consent claim. Contrary to defendants' contention, Supreme Court properly denied their motion (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We agree with defendants, however, that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on his cross motion (see generally id. ). The court thus erred in granting that cross motion, and we therefore modify the order accordingly.
Entered: March 18, 2022
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
162 N.Y.S.3d 815, 203 A.D.3d 1692, 2022 NY Slip Op 01929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-lam-nyappdiv-2022.