| Sheenan-Conrades v Winifred Masterson Burke RehabilitationHosp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04499 [51 AD3d 769] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Kristina Sheenan-Conrades, Appellant, v WinifredMasterson Burke Rehabilitation Hospital et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Jeanne A. Barry ofcounsel), for respondent Winifred Masterson Burke Rehabilitation Hospital. Rosenblum Newfield, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (James F. Biondo of counsel), for respondentSudhir Vaidya.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered January 5, 2007,which granted the separate motions of the defendant Winifred Masterson Burke RehabilitationHospital and the defendant Sudhir Vaidya for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of 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 injury ordamage (see Rebozo v Wilen, 41AD3d 457, 458 [2007]; Thompsonv Orner, 36 AD3d 791, 791-792 [2007]). The defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by the submission of extensive medical records andtwo expert affidavits, both of which opined, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, thatneither the defendant Winifred Masterson Burke Rehabilitation Hospital [*2]nor the defendant Sudhir Vaidya, departed from the acceptedstandard of care (see Shahid v NewYork City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 800 [2008]; Thompson v Orner, 36AD3d at 792).
In opposition, the vague and conclusory allegations contained in the affidavit of the plaintiff'smedical expert were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]; Shahid v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 800[2008]; Thompson v Orner, 36AD3d 791 [2007]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420, 421 [2003]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Belen,JJ., concur.