From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stepanian v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 27, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of his motion for summary judgment established a prima facie case that his treatment of the plaintiff was not negligent. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Kramer v. Rosenthal, 224 A.D.2d 392). The plaintiff met this burden by submitting an affidavit from her medical expert which included specific findings and conclusions tending to establish the essential elements of medical malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Taylor v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 236 A.D.2d 461). Accordingly, the defendant's motion was properly denied.

O'Brien, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stepanian v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Stepanian v. Goldstein

Case Details

Full title:TAMAR STEPANIAN, Respondent, v. ALLEN GOLDSTEIN, Appellant

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

Date published: May 27, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 969

Citing Cases

Rosarky v. Rifkin

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's cross motion for summary judgment. After the appellant made…