Ostrager v. Rhinebeck Equine, L.L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ostrager v. Rhinebeck Equine, L.L.P.

34 A.D.3d 238, 822 N.Y.S.2d 711

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 238 (Ostrager v. Rhinebeck Equine, L.L.P.) 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

Ostrager v. Rhinebeck Equine, L.L.P., 34 A.D.3d 238, 822 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered February 3, 2006, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered January 19, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Defendant doctors established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on their affidavits that the treatment of plaintiffs mares was consistent with accepted veterinary practice. Plaintiffs conclusory allegations of malpractice, unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the es[239]*239sential elements of his claim, were insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered February 3, 2006, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered January 19, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Defendant doctors established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on their affidavits that the treatment of plaintiffs mares was consistent with accepted veterinary practice. Plaintiffs conclusory allegations of malpractice, unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the es[239]*239sential elements of his claim, were insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 238, 822 N.Y.S.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostrager-v-rhinebeck-equine-llp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack