Moore v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

60 A.D.3d 828, 874 N.Y.S.2d 389

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 828 (Moore v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center) 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

Moore v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, 60 A.D.3d 828, 874 N.Y.S.2d 389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical mal[829]*829practice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated November 28, 2007, which granted the separate motions of the defendants St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center, Dan Lazarescu, and New York Medical Group, EC., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In response to the respondents’ respective showings of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to any of the respondents. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Chambers, 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 medical mal[829]*829practice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated November 28, 2007, which granted the separate motions of the defendants St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center, Dan Lazarescu, and New York Medical Group, EC., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In response to the respondents’ respective showings of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to any of the respondents. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 828, 874 N.Y.S.2d 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-st-lukes-roosevelt-hospital-center-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack