Rosarky v. Rifkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosarky v. Rifkin

297 A.D.2d 795, 748 N.Y.2d 64, 748 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8942

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment. After the appellant made out a prima facie case, the affirmations submitted by the plaintiff’s experts in opposition raised triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212; Barone v Flynn, 284 AD2d 422, 423; Campea v Mitra, 267 AD2d 190, 191; Stepanian v Goldstein, 239 AD2d 569, 570; Taylor v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 236 AD2d 461, 462; Licausie v North Shore Orthopedic Group, 232 AD2d 612, 613; Seidman v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 490, 491; cf. Holbrook v United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 248 AD2d 358, 359). S. Miller, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment. After the appellant made out a prima facie case, the affirmations submitted by the plaintiff’s experts in opposition raised triable issues of fact (see CPLR 3212; Barone v Flynn, 284 AD2d 422, 423; Campea v Mitra, 267 AD2d 190, 191; Stepanian v Goldstein, 239 AD2d 569, 570; Taylor v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 236 AD2d 461, 462; Licausie v North Shore Orthopedic Group, 232 AD2d 612, 613; Seidman v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 490, 491; cf. Holbrook v United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 248 AD2d 358, 359). S. Miller, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Rosarky v. Rifkin, 297 A.D.2d 795, 748 N.Y.2d 64, 748 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

297 A.D.2d 795 (Rosarky v. Rifkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related