Panlilio v. Mueller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panlilio v. Mueller

300 A.D.2d 76, 750 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12112

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 76 (Panlilio v. Mueller) 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

Panlilio v. Mueller, 300 A.D.2d 76, 750 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 11, 2001, dismissing the complaint as against defendant-respondent, and bringing up for review [77]*77an order which, in an action for medical malpractice alleging failure to timely diagnose colon cancer, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to rebut defendant-respondent’s prima facie showings that she did not follow his timely and repeated recommendations to undergo a colonoscopy and that he owed plaintiff no duty to supervise the specialists to whom he referred plaintiff for the colonoscopy (see Markley v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 163 AD2d 639, 640-641; Kleinert v Begum, 144 AD2d 645, 647-648). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 11, 2001, dismissing the complaint as against defendant-respondent, and bringing up for review [77]*77an order which, in an action for medical malpractice alleging failure to timely diagnose colon cancer, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to rebut defendant-respondent’s prima facie showings that she did not follow his timely and repeated recommendations to undergo a colonoscopy and that he owed plaintiff no duty to supervise the specialists to whom he referred plaintiff for the colonoscopy (see Markley v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 163 AD2d 639, 640-641; Kleinert v Begum, 144 AD2d 645, 647-648). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Buckley and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 76, 750 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panlilio-v-mueller-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack