Opinion
2013-11169
11-19-2014
Dan BARLEV, respondent, v. BETHPAGE PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATES, P.C., appellant.
Tromello, McDonnell & Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (James S. Kehoe of counsel), for appellant. Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Tromello, McDonnell & Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (James S. Kehoe of counsel), for appellant.
Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (J. Golia, J.), entered September 6, 2013, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In a medical malpractice action, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing, prima facie, either the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Wall v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 78 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 912 N.Y.S.2d 77 ). Here, the defendant, on its motion, failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not depart from good and accepted standards of medical care, and also failed to address the issue of causation. Instead, the defendant's expert merely recounted the treatment rendered and opined in a conclusory manner that such treatment did not represent a departure from good and accepted medical practice (see Yaegel v. Ciuffo, 95 A.D.3d 1110, 944 N.Y.S.2d 601 ; Couch v. County of Suffolk, 296 A.D.2d 194, 746 N.Y.S.2d 187 ). In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ; LaVecchia v. Bilello, 76 A.D.3d 548, 906 N.Y.S.2d 326 ).
SKELOS, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.