Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated as to the defendant Daniel H. Cohen.
The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, with sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Wertheimer v. Paley, 137 A.D.2d 680). The failure to do so requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the papers in opposition (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Graber v. Zwanger, 175 A.D.2d 911).
Here, the respondent offered the affidavit of an expert stating that the respondent's treatment of the plaintiff Leon Allen was consistent with the accepted standards of neurology in the community, and did not contribute to, exacerbate, or cause any of Mr. Allen's claimed injuries. Such bare conclusory allegations failed to refute the specific factual allegations of medical malpractice in the bills of particulars, and are insufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Delprete v. Victory Mem. Hosp., 191 A.D.2d 673; Graber v. Zwanger, supra; Montalbano v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 154 A.D.2d 579). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.