Sabbatino v. Sussman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabbatino v. Sussman

282 A.D.2d 665, 723 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3970

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 665 (Sabbatino v. Sussman) 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

Sabbatino v. Sussman, 282 A.D.2d 665, 723 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), entered February 15, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant New York Methodist Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied their cross motion to strike its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant New York Methodist Hospital (hereinafter the Hospital) demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Toth v Community Hosp., 22 NY2d 255; Florentino v Wenger, 19 NY2d 407). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Hospital’s motion (see, Argenziano v Romita, 250 AD2d 384).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), entered February 15, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant New York Methodist Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied their cross motion to strike its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant New York Methodist Hospital (hereinafter the Hospital) demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Toth v Community Hosp., 22 NY2d 255; Florentino v Wenger, 19 NY2d 407). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Hospital’s motion (see, Argenziano v Romita, 250 AD2d 384).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 665, 723 N.Y.S.2d 706, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabbatino-v-sussman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack