Pianoforte v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pianoforte v. City of New York

140 A.D.3d 552, 32 N.Y.S.3d 504

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

DecidedJune 21, 2016

Docket1516 305876/13

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 552 (Pianoforte v. City of New York) 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

Pianoforte v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 552, 32 N.Y.S.3d 504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2015, which granted the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action for medical malpractice against the City and the doctors who treated him for their failure to prevent a grand mal seizure he suffered while he was incarcerated. Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing *553 that plaintiff’s seizure was caused by an underlying, undetected seizure disorder that defendant doctors had no reason to expect plaintiff suffered from, and that the treatment provided to plaintiff was appropriate and within accepted medical practice (see e.g. Curry v Dr. Elena Vezza Physician, P.C., 106 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendants demonstrated that plaintiff’s seizure could not have been the result of benzodiazepine withdrawal.

Concur- — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2015, which granted the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action for medical malpractice against the City and the doctors who treated him for their failure to prevent a grand mal seizure he suffered while he was incarcerated. Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing *553 that plaintiff’s seizure was caused by an underlying, undetected seizure disorder that defendant doctors had no reason to expect plaintiff suffered from, and that the treatment provided to plaintiff was appropriate and within accepted medical practice (see e.g. Curry v Dr. Elena Vezza Physician, P.C., 106 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendants demonstrated that plaintiff’s seizure could not have been the result of benzodiazepine withdrawal.

Concur- — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 552, 32 N.Y.S.3d 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pianoforte-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack