Alvarez v. GerbergAlvarez v. Gerberg
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants Bernard Beckerman and Huntington Hospital; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant William Michael Martin, payable by the plaintiffs, and one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs payable by the defendants Bernard Beckerman and Huntington Hospital.
“In order to establish the liability of a physician for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the physician deviated or departed from accepted community standards of practice, and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff‘s injuries” (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 23 [2011]; see Olgun v Cipolla, 82 AD3d 1186; Hamilton v Good Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern, N.Y., 73 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]). A defendant physician seeking summary judgment in a medical malpractice action “must make a prima facie showing that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby” (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]; see Brady v Westchester County Healthcare Corp., 78 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2010]; Castro v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 74 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2010]; Ellis v Eng, 70 AD3d 887, 890 [2010]). If the defendant physician satisfies this prima facie burden, “‘a plaintiff must submit evidentiary facts or materials to rebut the defendant‘s prima facie showing, so as to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact‘” (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011], quoting Deutsch v Chaglassian, 71 AD3d 718, 719 [2010]; see Brady v Westchester County Healthcare Corp., 78 AD3d at 1098; Castro v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 74 AD3d at 1006).
Here, in support of their motion, the defendants Bernard Beckerman and Huntington Hospital (hereinafter together the Hospital defendants) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through their submissions, including their expert‘s affidavit, which showed, prima facie, that their actions were not a departure from good and accepted medical practice. In opposition, however, the plaintiffs submitted their expert‘s affirmation which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Hospital defendants departed from good and accepted medical practice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the Hospital defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.