Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert LATONA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael ROBERSON, M.S., P.T., Catholic Health System, Doing Business as Kenmore Mercy Hospital, Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendant.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of treatment he received from defendant Michael Roberson, M.S., P.T., a licensed physical therapist, and as a result of various actions and omissions of defendant Catholic Health System, doing business as Kenmore Mercy Hospital (CHS). Contrary to the contention of Roberson and CHS (collectively, defendants), we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Although we agree with defendants that they met their initial burden with respect to Roberson (see Bickom v. Bierwagen, 48 A.D.3d 1247, 852 N.Y.S.2d 542; Selmensberger v. Kaleida Health, 45 A.D.3d 1435, 1436, 845 N.Y.S.2d 659; Moticik v. Sisters Healthcare, 19 A.D.3d 1052, 1052-1053, 796 N.Y.S.2d 834), we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with respect to him by submitting an expert affidavit “attesting to a departure from accepted practice and containing the attesting [expert's] opinion that [Roberson's] omissions or departures were a competent producing cause of the injury” (O'Shea v. Buffalo Med. Group, P.C., 64 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 882 N.Y.S.2d 619, appeal dismissed 13 N.Y.3d 834, 890 N.Y.S.2d 449, 918 N.E.2d 964 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Selmensberger, 45 A.D.3d at 1436, 845 N.Y.S.2d 659). We further conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden with respect to CHS, inasmuch as they failed to establish that it was not negligent. Indeed, defendants' expert merely stated that she found “no evidence in the record to support plaintiff's claim that [CHS] was negligent,” and defendants cannot establish their entitlement to summary judgment with respect to CHS “by noting alleged gaps in plaintiff['s] proof” (Seivert v. Kingpin Enters., Inc., 55 A.D.3d 1406, 1407, 865 N.Y.S.2d 187; see generally Orcutt v. American Linen Supply Co., 212 A.D.2d 979, 623 N.Y.S.2d 457).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 19, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)