Torrillo v. Cherny
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Torrillo v Cherny
2026 NY Slip Op 04650
July 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
RALPH A. TORRILLO, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE A. TORRILLO, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v
RICHARD C. CHERNY, M.D., HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, P.C., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND SANTO M. DIFINO, M.D., DEFENDANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on July 24, 2026
461 CA 25-01342
Present: Curran, J.P., Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ.
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (CORY J. SCHOONMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND DEFENDANT.
GILLETTE & IZZO LAW OFFICE PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOSHUA M. GILLETTE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Robert E. Antonacci, II, J.), entered July 28, 2025. The order, among other things, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, insofar as it asserts a claim of vicarious liability against defendant Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, P.C. based on the alleged medical malpractice of defendant Santo M. DiFino, M.D., and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice and wrongful death action seeking damages for injuries that plaintiff's decedent sustained after undergoing surgery. Richard C. Cherny, M.D., Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, P.C. (HOA) (collectively, defendants), and defendant Santo M. DiFino, M.D. moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Supreme Court granted that part of the motion with respect to DiFino and otherwise denied the motion. Defendants appeal.
We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, insofar as it asserts that HOA is vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of DiFino, and we therefore modify the order accordingly (see Bieger v Kaleida Health Sys., Inc., 195 AD3d 1473, 1475 [4th Dept 2021]). For reasons stated in the decision and order at Supreme Court, we reject defendants' remaining contention on appeal.
Entered: July 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Torrillo v. Cherny (Torrillo v. Cherny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.