From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scally v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-00466, 01-00468, 01-00469

Argued May 6, 2002

June 3, 2002

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated December 11, 2000, which granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, (2) a judgment of the same court, entered December 18, 2000, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Putnam Hospital Center, and (3) a judgment of the same court, entered December 22, 2000, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Michael Weintraub.

Carl C. Kling, Hawthorne, N.Y., for appellant.

Feldman, Kleidman Coffey, LLP, Fishkill, N.Y. (Robert R. Sappe of counsel), for respondent Michael Weintraub.

Rende, Ryan Downes, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Roland T. Koke of counsel), for respondent Putnam Hospital Center.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


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

ORDERED that the judgments are 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 the judgments in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeals from the judgments (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The motions were supported by expert medical evidence establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). In opposition, the plaintiff provided an attorney's affirmation and her own affidavit. She failed to submit an affidavit of a medical expert demonstrating that the defendants deviated from good and accepted medical practice. Thus, the plaintiff did not meet the standard of evidence required to defeat the motions (see Spicer v. Community Family Planning Counsel Health Ctr., 272 A.D.2d 317; Schaefer v. Marchiano, 193 A.D.2d 664).

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FRIEDMANN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scally v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Scally v. Weintraub

Case Details

Full title:VERALINDA SCALLY, appellant, v. MICHAEL WEINTRAUB, ETC., et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Zwiebel v. Guttman

Such "issues are not within the ken of lay people" ( Mevorah v. King, 303 AD2d 657, 658). The affirmations of…

Garcia v. Winthrop University Hospital

Thus plaintiff has failed to meet his evidentiary burden required to defeat defendants' motions for summary…