Vogel v. Palmieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vogel v. Palmieri

221 A.D.2d 522, 633 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12010

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 522 (Vogel v. Palmieri) 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. Palmieri, 221 A.D.2d 522, 633 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising from medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated March 10, 1994, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Thomas Joseph Palmieri 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 defendant Dr. Thomas Joseph Palmieri performed surgery on the right hand of the plaintiff Lydia Vogel to relieve the effects of what was diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome. The plaintiff, alleging, inter alia, that she was unable to open her hand completely after the surgery, commenced this action [523]*523against Dr. Palmieri and his clinic, the defendant Hand Rehabilitation Center of Long Island, alleging lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The court granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Thomas Joseph Palmieri which was for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him. We now affirm.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Palmieri submitted evidence in admissible form sufficient to warrant summary judgment in his favor (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Accordingly, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Baldasare v Suriano, 175 AD2d 93). Here, however, the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs expert failed to connect the factual assertions made therein to the plaintiffs claim alleging medical malpractice or lack of informed consent other than in a purely conclusory manner (see, e.g., Bennett v Sullivan, 116 AD2d 938). Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Dr. Palmieri. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, 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 personal injuries, etc., arising from medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated March 10, 1994, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Thomas Joseph Palmieri 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 defendant Dr. Thomas Joseph Palmieri performed surgery on the right hand of the plaintiff Lydia Vogel to relieve the effects of what was diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome. The plaintiff, alleging, inter alia, that she was unable to open her hand completely after the surgery, commenced this action [523]*523against Dr. Palmieri and his clinic, the defendant Hand Rehabilitation Center of Long Island, alleging lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The court granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Thomas Joseph Palmieri which was for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against him. We now affirm.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Palmieri submitted evidence in admissible form sufficient to warrant summary judgment in his favor (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Accordingly, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Baldasare v Suriano, 175 AD2d 93). Here, however, the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs expert failed to connect the factual assertions made therein to the plaintiffs claim alleging medical malpractice or lack of informed consent other than in a purely conclusory manner (see, e.g., Bennett v Sullivan, 116 AD2d 938). Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as it is asserted against Dr. Palmieri. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 522, 633 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogel-v-palmieri-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack