From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maggiotta v. Walsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06193

Argued June 3, 2003.

June 23, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated May 10, 2002, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Alan K. Hirschhorn, Linda S. Agnew, and Lisa J. Silverman of counsel), for appellants.

Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Loretta A. Redmond of counsel), for respondent Peter F. Walsh.

Perez, Furey Varvaro, Uniondale, N.Y. (Joseph Varvaro of counsel), for respondent Body Wise International, Inc.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff's husband (hereinafter the decedent) allegedly began consuming a nutritional supplement (hereinafter the product) several months before he died of hypercalcemia. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against Peter F. Walsh, the chiropractor who recommended the product to the decedent, and Body Wise International, Inc., the company that distributed it, alleging that the vitamin D and calcium contained in the product caused the decedent's death. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

The defendants submitted evidence establishing, inter alia, that the product contained reasonable and safe amounts of vitamin D and calcium, and that the product was not the proximate cause of the decedent's death. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted a vague and conclusory expert affidavit that failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants (see Lasky v. Ford, 194 A.D.2d 978).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Maggiotta v. Walsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Maggiotta v. Walsh

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET M. MAGGIOTTA, ETC., ET AL., appellants, v. PETER F. WALSH, ETC.…

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

Date published: Jun 23, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
762 N.Y.S.2d 257

Citing Cases

Gralnik v. Brighton Beach Associates

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the affidavit of a purported expert…

BRONX RADIOLOGY v. NY CENTRAL

While Cipriani opined that the acceleration of the plaintiff's vehicle "posed virtually no risk of injury,"…