Slanetz v. North Shore University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slanetz v. North Shore University Hospital

228 A.D.2d 490, 643 N.Y.2d 1001, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6608

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 490 (Slanetz v. North Shore University Hospital) 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

Slanetz v. North Shore University Hospital, 228 A.D.2d 490, 643 N.Y.2d 1001, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

To obtain summary judgment, the movant "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Here the defendant made such a showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiff’s opposing papers did not constitute sufficient proof to defeat the motion for summary judgment because they consisted entirely of conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). We further find that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended summons and second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 305, 2215, and 3025 (b).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

To obtain summary judgment, the movant "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Here the defendant made such a showing (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiff’s opposing papers did not constitute sufficient proof to defeat the motion for summary judgment because they consisted entirely of conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). We further find that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended summons and second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 305, 2215, and 3025 (b).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 490, 643 N.Y.2d 1001, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slanetz-v-north-shore-university-hospital-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack