HARRISON v. GABBAIZADEH (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), dated July 22, 2024.  The order granted the separate motions of the defendants Lauren Heath Patti, Tamara Mohuchy, Juliette Kraydman, Neeraj Katriyar, Huntington Hospital, the defendants David Gabbaizadeh, NYU Langone Health System, and NYU Langone Huntington Medical Group, and the defendant Joseph Patane for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In November 2019, the plaintiffs, Michele A. Harrison, as administrator of the estate of Maria Luisa Suarez (hereinafter the decedent), and the estate of the decedent, commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for negligence, medical malpractice, and related causes of action arising out of the defendants' care and medical treatment of the decedent.  Following the completion of discovery, the defendants Lauren Heath Patti, Tamara Mohuchy, Juliette Kraydman, Neeraj Katriyar, and Huntington Hospital (hereinafter collectively the Huntington defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.  The defendants David Gabbaizadeh, NYU Langone Health System, and NYU Langone Huntington Medical Group (hereinafter collectively the NYU defendants) also separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.  The defendant Joseph Patane also separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.  The plaintiffs opposed the motions.  In an order dated July 22, 2024, the Supreme Court granted those defendants' respective motions.  The plaintiffs appeal.

“In moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that there was no departure or deviation from the accepted standard of care or that such departure or deviation was not a proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff” (Attia v. Klebanov, 192 A.D.3d 650, 651, 143 N.Y.S.3d 408;  see Mendoza v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 203 A.D.3d 715, 716, 160 N.Y.S.3d 663).  Once a defendant makes its prima facie showing, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden” (Rico v. New York Methodist Hosp., 242 A.D.3d 787, 788, 240 N.Y.S.3d 490 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Piazza v. NYU Hosps. Ctr., 208 A.D.3d 525, 526, 173 N.Y.S.3d 293).  “General and conclusory allegations of medical malpractice, however, unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the essential elements of medical malpractice, are insufficient to defeat a defendant physician's summary judgment motion” (Louz v. Fatiha, 242 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 242 N.Y.S.3d 376 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Mendoza v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 203 A.D.3d at 716–717, 160 N.Y.S.3d 663).

Here, the Huntington defendants, the NYU defendants, and Patane each established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them through expert affirmations that they submitted with their respective motions.  Each of these experts opined, based on their review of medical records, deposition testimony, and the pleadings, inter alia, that those defendants did not depart from accepted medical practice in their treatment of the decedent.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The affirmation of the plaintiffs' expert was conclusory and speculative and, therefore, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Williams v. Levine, 238 A.D.3d 960, 962, 233 N.Y.S.3d 170;  Piazza v. NYU Hosps. Ctr., 208 A.D.3d at 526, 173 N.Y.S.3d 293).

The parties' remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

DUFFY, J.P., WARHIT, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.