Opinion
01-00789
February 15, 2002
March 11, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 12, 2000, as granted the respective motions of the defendants Westchester County Medical Center, Charles Her, Zahid Niazi, Jane A. Petro, C. Andrew Salzberg, Roger E. Salisbury, Frank V. Winski, New York Group for Plastic Surgery and Rehabilitation, and County of Westchester for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Rankow, Cohen Isaac, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Lawrence A. Cohen of counsel), for appellants.
Pilkington Leggett, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Steven W. Kraus of counsel), for respondents Westchester County Medical Center, County of Westchester, Zahid Niazi, and Charles Her.
Rende, Ryan Downes, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Roland T. Koke of counsel), for respondents Jane A. Petro, C. Andrew Salzberg, Roger E. Salisbury, Frank V. Winski, and New York Group for Plastic Surgery and Rehabilitation.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, and THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the respondents' prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Davenport v. County of Nassau, 279 A.D.2d 497; Ferrara v. South Shore Orthopedic Assocs., 178 A.D.2d 364; Mortensen v. Memorial Hosp., 105 A.D.2d 151). The affidavits submitted by the respondents' medical experts established that, irrespective of the delay in surgery, the severed portion of the injured plaintiff's finger could not be reattached because of severe vascular damage caused by the initial trauma. Although the affidavit of the plaintiffs' medical expert attested to certain alleged departures by the respondents, it failed to raise a triable issue of fact that reattachment would have been successful had there been no delay in surgery (see, Bossio v. Fiorillo, 210 A.D.2d 836; Fritz v. Southside Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 671; Vossler v. Amin, 175 A.D.2d 570).
Accordingly, the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact that the delay in surgery was a proximate cause of any further damage to the injured plaintiff (see, Domaradzki v. Glen Cove Ob/Gyn Assocs., 242 A.D.2d 282; Bossio v. Fiorillo, supra).