Stepanian v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stepanian v. Goldstein

239 A.D.2d 569, 658 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682

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

DecidedMay 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 569 (Stepanian v. Goldstein) 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

Stepanian v. Goldstein, 239 A.D.2d 569, 658 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated October 10, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his [570]*570motion for summary judgment established a prima facie case that his treatment of the plaintiff was not negligent. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Kramer v Rosenthal, 224 AD2d 392). The plaintiff met this burden by submitting an affidavit from her medical expert which included specific findings and conclusions tending to establish the essential elements of medical malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Taylor v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 236 AD2d 461). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated October 10, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his [570]*570motion for summary judgment established a prima facie case that his treatment of the plaintiff was not negligent. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Kramer v Rosenthal, 224 AD2d 392). The plaintiff met this burden by submitting an affidavit from her medical expert which included specific findings and conclusions tending to establish the essential elements of medical malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Taylor v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 236 AD2d 461). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 569, 658 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stepanian-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack