Opinion
March 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Alan Oshrin, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that defendant Dr. Cardi's affidavits in support of his cross motion, while substantiating the appropriateness of a cone biopsy, are bare and conclusory and insufficient to preclude liability as a matter of law with respect to plaintiff's claim that excessive tissue was removed during that procedure necessitating further surgical procedures during her pregnancy. Having failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.