Opinion
No. 2011–3167QC.
2013-10-15
Plaintiff's only argument, both before the Civil Court and on appeal, is that the peer review report relied upon by defendant contained a stamped signature and, as a result, it was inadmissible. We find that plaintiff's assertion, without any indication as to why plaintiff believed that the signature was a stamped signature, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact ( see Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 32 Misc.3d 127[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 51230[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists] ). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.