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.
Michael Caggiano, et al., respondents, v. David Cooling, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.
Argued—January 12, 2012
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant David Cooling appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated January 21, 2011, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To establish liability for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant deviated or departed from accepted community standards of practice, and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Stukas v. Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 23; Heller v. Weinberg, 77 AD3d 622). On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant has the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby (see Heller v. Weinberg, 77 AD3d at 622–623). In determining a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (see Stukas v. Streiter, 83 AD3d at 23).
Here, the appellant failed to satisfy his prima facie burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because he failed to demonstrate that he did not depart or deviate from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the alleged injury. Since the appellant failed to meet his burden, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs, and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers need not be considered (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
FLORIO, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2011–02269 (Index No. 27017 /06)
Decided: February 07, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)