| Perro v Schappert |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00246 [47 AD3d 694] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gary Perro, Jr., Appellant, v Bonnie Schappert,Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Geisler & Gabriele, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Colleen M. Buckley of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 20, 2006, which grantedthe motion of the defendant Bonnie Schappert for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departurefrom accepted practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of the injury(see Anderson v Lamaute, 306 AD2d 232, 233 [2003]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302AD2d 420, 421 [2003]). The defendant Bonnie Schappert met her prima facie burden ofdemonstrating her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the affirmation of hermedical expert, who opined, based on the medical records and deposition testimony, thatSchappert's actions in removing the plaintiff's Foley catheter were in accordance with good andaccepted nursing practice (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Furey v Kraft, 27 AD3d 416, 418[2006]).
In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiff's nursing expert failed to raise a triable issue offact regarding the applicable standard of care, any departures therefrom, and whether the allegedmalpractice was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The bare conclusory allegations[*2]of the plaintiff's expert, which were unsupported by therecord, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Thompson v Orner, 36 AD3d 791, 792 [2007]; Furey vKraft, 27 AD3d at 418; Jonassen vStaten Is. Univ. Hosp., 22 AD3d 805, 806 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Fisher andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.