Zarks v. Kutcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zarks v. Kutcher

268 A.D.2d 426, 701 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 187

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 426 (Zarks v. Kutcher) 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

Zarks v. Kutcher, 268 A.D.2d 426, 701 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [427]*427Queens County (Berke, J.), dated September 25, 1998, which granted the separate motions of the defendants William Kutcher and Douglas L. Prisco and the defendant Jodilyn Gin-gold for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The affidavit of Dr. Jeffrey Siegel, submitted in support of the motion of the defendants William Kutcher and Jodilyn Gingold for summary judgment, and the affidavit of Dr. Ian H. Newmark, submitted in support of the separate motion of the defendant Douglas L. Prisco for the same relief, made a prima facie showing sufficient to warrant judgment in favor of the moving defendants as a matter of law. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to lay bare her proof and demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the redacted affidavit of the plaintiffs expert failed to raise any issues of fact. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, 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, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [427]*427Queens County (Berke, J.), dated September 25, 1998, which granted the separate motions of the defendants William Kutcher and Douglas L. Prisco and the defendant Jodilyn Gin-gold for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The affidavit of Dr. Jeffrey Siegel, submitted in support of the motion of the defendants William Kutcher and Jodilyn Gingold for summary judgment, and the affidavit of Dr. Ian H. Newmark, submitted in support of the separate motion of the defendant Douglas L. Prisco for the same relief, made a prima facie showing sufficient to warrant judgment in favor of the moving defendants as a matter of law. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to lay bare her proof and demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the redacted affidavit of the plaintiffs expert failed to raise any issues of fact. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 426, 701 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zarks-v-kutcher-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack