Napolitano v. Huss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Napolitano v. Huss

272 A.D.2d 308, 708 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 1, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered January 22, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Good Samaritan Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied her cross motion to compel further discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Good Samaritan Hospital established a prima [309]*309facie case for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the hospital’s alleged negligence in failing to supervise or revoke the privileges of the defendant doctors (see, Sledziewski v Ciofifi, 137 AD2d 186, 189; cf., Raschel v Risk, 110 AD2d 1067, 1068).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, 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 malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered January 22, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Good Samaritan Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied her cross motion to compel further discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Good Samaritan Hospital established a prima [309]*309facie case for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the hospital’s alleged negligence in failing to supervise or revoke the privileges of the defendant doctors (see, Sledziewski v Ciofifi, 137 AD2d 186, 189; cf., Raschel v Risk, 110 AD2d 1067, 1068).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Napolitano v. Huss, 272 A.D.2d 308, 708 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 308 (Napolitano v. Huss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related