From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pecker v. Horwitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-08086, 2002-09733

Submitted September 29, 2003

November 3, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated July 15, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Kathy Panken Plesser and Murray Hill Radiology Mammography, P.C., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered September 18, 2002, upon the order, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Lloyd A. Katz, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Martin, Clearwater Bell, New York, N.Y. (Patricia D'Alvia, John L. A. Lyddane, and Nancy A. Breslow of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants Kathy Panken Plesser and Murray Hill Radiology Mammography, P.C., demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that they did not depart from accepted medical practice ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zawadzki v. Knight, 76 N.Y.2d 898; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Sheikh v. Sinha, 272 A.D.2d 465; Fhima v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 269 A.D.2d 559; Kaplan v. Hamilton Med. Assocs., 262 A.D.2d 609).

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pecker v. Horwitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Pecker v. Horwitz

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL FREDERICK PECKER, ETC., appellant, v. DAVID HORWITZ, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 592