From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Catechis v. Corines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 8, 1997
242 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 8, 1997

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


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 1, 1996, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 11, 1996, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 11, 1996, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff's position would not have declined to undergo the procedure in question here if he or she had been fully informed ( see, Public Health Law § 2805-d), or that the defendants' negligence did not create the condition complained of. Thus, the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment regardless of the adequacy of the plaintiff's opposing papers ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Porter v. Huntington Hosp., 148 A.D.2d 510, 511).

Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Catechis v. Corines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 8, 1997
242 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Catechis v. Corines

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOS CATECHIS, Respondent, v. PETER J. CORINES et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Sep 8, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 264

Citing Cases

Muniz v. Katlowitz

Therefore, Dr. Katlowitz did not establish his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the…

Baez v. Lockridge

In addition, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of…