Opinion
June 23, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christ, J.).
Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The moving and cross-moving defendant doctors each submitted personal affidavits in which they unequivocally denied their participation in any treatment or examination of the decedent during the time of the alleged malpractice. In addition, the medical records and deposition testimony of the codefendant, Dr. Alan Rose, support their contention. Thus, these defendants satisfied their burden of establishing by evidentiary proof their entitlement to summary judgment in their favor (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851; Lucas v. Long Is. Physicians Assoc., 103 A.D.2d 841; Lewis v. Mensher, 77 A.D.2d 562). The plaintiff failed to rebut this showing by any proof in admissible form which would raise a question of fact as to the movants' and cross movants' participation in the decedent's treatment. Her papers in opposition were inconclusive and speculative. Moreover, the lack of any factual basis to rebut the movants' and cross movants' denials of any participation in the decedent's treatment appeared to be due in part to the plaintiff's own failure to conduct depositions of those physicians to establish their identities as treating physicians. No reason is proffered as to why the plaintiff chose to depose only Dr. Rose. A party may not claim ignorance of critical facts necessary to defeat a motion for summary judgment where that ignorance was avoidable (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Kenworthy v. Town of Oyster Bay, 116 A.D.2d 628). Gibbons, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.