Pace v. Dicosimo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pace v. Dicosimo

134 A.D.2d 836, 521 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51007

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 836 (Pace v. Dicosimo) 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

Pace v. Dicosimo, 134 A.D.2d 836, 521 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court improperly denied defendant Dicosimo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging negligence in performing dental surgery. The affidavit submitted in support of the motion made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and plaintiffs submitted no expert evidence in opposition (see, Bills v Africano, 132 AD2d 935).

Since defendant’s affidavit did not address the cause of [837]*837action for lack of informed consent, however, that cause of action must stand. The order appealed from is modified by dismissing the first cause of action, and the fourth and fifth causes of action as against defendant Dicosimo. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court improperly denied defendant Dicosimo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging negligence in performing dental surgery. The affidavit submitted in support of the motion made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and plaintiffs submitted no expert evidence in opposition (see, Bills v Africano, 132 AD2d 935).

Since defendant’s affidavit did not address the cause of [837]*837action for lack of informed consent, however, that cause of action must stand. The order appealed from is modified by dismissing the first cause of action, and the fourth and fifth causes of action as against defendant Dicosimo. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 836, 521 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-v-dicosimo-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack