Smalls v. Mercy Medical Center
This text of 50 A.D.3d 670 (Smalls v. Mercy Medical Center) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered August 8, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendant based upon a theory of res ipsa loquitur. In support of its motion, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Porter v Milhorat, 303 AD2d 736 [2003]). A triable issue of fact exists, inter alia, as to whether the injury at issue was “caused [671]*671by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant” (Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489, 494 [1997]). The defendant’s failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 A.D.3d 670, 854 N.Y.S.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smalls-v-mercy-medical-center-nyappdiv-2008.