Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentNov 28, 1994
209 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
209 A.D.2d 679619 N.Y.S.2d 141

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Dispigno v. Berroya

    …Ctr., 300 AD2d 437). This court finds that factual issues exist as to whether the administration of Kefzol…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

November 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the branch of the defendant Grace Macaluso's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against her is denied.

In the instant medical malpractice action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant Grace Macaluso, the attending physician, was consulted about, and thereafter approved, the administration of Pitocin to speed the progress of the plaintiff's mother's labor. The complaint further alleged that the administration of Pitocin was contraindicated, and caused brain injuries to the infant plaintiff.

In opposition to Macaluso's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff and the appellants submitted probative evidence, including, inter alia, excerpts from depositions of hospital employees, as well as an appropriate medical affidavit, which, together with certain hospital records signed by Macaluso, raised crucial issues of fact for the jury to resolve, i.e., whether Macaluso was notified about and approved the administration of Pitocin, whether the administration of Pitocin was contraindicated, and whether it was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries.

Accordingly, Macaluso's motion for summary judgment must be denied (see generally, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.