Monaco v. CVS Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monaco v. CVS Corp.

267 A.D.2d 437, 700 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13311

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 437 (Monaco v. CVS Corp.) 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

Monaco v. CVS Corp., 267 A.D.2d 437, 700 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant CVS Corporation, d/b/a CVS appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated December 9, 1998, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from fear of developing cancer insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and the cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from fear of developing cancer is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The appellant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement [438]*438to summary judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from a fear of developing cancer, prompted by the alleged negligence of the appellant in the preparation of a medical prescription (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 210 AD2d 836). The plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on that cause of action (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Conway v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 189 AD2d 851; cf., Bossio v Fiorillo, supra). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant CVS Corporation, d/b/a CVS appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated December 9, 1998, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from fear of developing cancer insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and the cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from fear of developing cancer is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The appellant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement [438]*438to summary judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from a fear of developing cancer, prompted by the alleged negligence of the appellant in the preparation of a medical prescription (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 210 AD2d 836). The plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on that cause of action (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Conway v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 189 AD2d 851; cf., Bossio v Fiorillo, supra). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 437, 700 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monaco-v-cvs-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack