28 Cited authorities

Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp
68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 21,149 times 8 Legal Analyses
Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony
Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center
64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 18,070 times 8 Legal Analyses
Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed
Stukas v. Streiter
83 A.D.3d 18 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) Cited 1,121 times
In Stukas, the Second Department held that when opposing a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, a nonmoving plaintiff need only address or rebut those elements of liability or causation prima facie established by the moving defendant (seeStukas v. Streiter, 83 A.D.3d at 30, 918 N.Y.S.2d 176).
Rebozo v. Wilen
41 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 289 times
No. 2006-03645. June 5, 2007. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant David H. Zelefsky appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated March 7, 2006, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Vaslas Lepowsky Hauss Danke, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Karen Hauss of counsel), for appellant. Burger Perrotta (Charles Burger and Marvin Ben-Aron, Staten
Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority
63 N.Y.2d 723 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 273 times
In Hambsch, although the Court concluded that expert testimony should not have been admitted at trial without presentation of the underlying X ray, no best evidence rule objection was lodged and the Court's holding cannot be construed as addressing the issue (63 N.Y.2d, at 725).
Gomez v. Katz
61 A.D.3d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 97 times
In Gomez v. Katz, the Second Department explained that the continuous treatment doctrine contains three principal elements, the first being that the plaintiff continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period.
Shectman v. Wilson
68 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 79 times
In Shectman, on the other hand, this Court concluded that the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert, who specialized in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, lacked probative value with respect to the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's pediatric developmental disabilities (seeShectman v. Wilson, 68 A.D.3d at 849–850, 890 N.Y.S.2d 117).
Bhim v. Dourmashkin
123 A.D.3d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) Cited 60 times
2014-12-17 Jane BHIM, et al., respondents, v. Michael DOURMASHKIN, etc., et al., defendants, John Platz, etc., et al., appellants. Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for appellants Michelle N. Johnson and Donna Marchant. Ronemus & Vilensky, New York, N.Y. (Rhonda Abrams Silverman of counsel), for respondents. MARK C. DILLON Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for appellants Michelle N. Johnson
Cerny v. Williams
32 A.D.3d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 73 times
2004-10053. September 19, 2006. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered October 19, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated July 21, 2004, granting that branch of the motion of the defendants Andrea Dobrenis and HIP Hospital, Inc., sued herein as LaGuardia Hospital, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, dismissed
Micciola v. Sacchi
36 A.D.3d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 66 times
No. 2005-08911. January 30, 2007. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated July 29, 2005, as granted the separate cross motions of the defendant Asha Mittal, the defendants Sylvie Bastadjian and University Physicians Group, EC, and the defendant Alex Racco for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against

Barbara Burns,, Appellant,v.Sudhir Goyal, et al., Defendants, Rakesh B. Patel, et al., Respondents.

28 Cited authorities

Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed

In Hambsch, although the Court concluded that expert testimony should not have been admitted at trial without presentation of the underlying X ray, no best evidence rule objection was lodged and the Court's holding cannot be construed as addressing the issue (63 N.Y.2d, at 725).

In Gomez v. Katz, the Second Department explained that the continuous treatment doctrine contains three principal elements, the first being that the plaintiff continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period.