Schwartz v. Speaker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Speaker

35 A.D.3d 583, 825 N.Y.S.2d 646

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 583 (Schwartz v. Speaker) 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

Schwartz v. Speaker, 35 A.D.3d 583, 825 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant TLC Laser Centers, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated June 17, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

In support of the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it, the appellant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Mduba v Benedictine Hosp., 52 AD2d 450, 452 [1976]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant TLC Laser Centers, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated June 17, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

In support of the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it, the appellant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Mduba v Benedictine Hosp., 52 AD2d 450, 452 [1976]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 583, 825 N.Y.S.2d 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-speaker-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack