Vogel v. Deutsch

16 A.D.3d 489, 792 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 489 (Vogel v. Deutsch) 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
Vogel v. Deutsch, 16 A.D.3d 489, 792 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated February 27, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Eliyahu Ladell which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

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

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for medical malpractice alleging, inter alia, that the defendant Dr. Eliyahu Ladell was negligent in the care and treatment of a laceration on his knee. However, Ladell made a prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by proffering [490]*490evidence that his care and treatment of the plaintiffs knee did not depart from good and accepted medical practice and was not a proximate cause of any of the injuries alleged (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; DiMitri v Monsouri, supra; Holbrook v United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 248 AD2d 358 [1998]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Ladell’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smith v. Mollica
2018 NY Slip Op 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Chance v. Felder
33 A.D.3d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 489, 792 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogel-v-deutsch-nyappdiv-2005.