| Hernandez v Hochman |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08455 [56 AD3d 427] |
| November 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marie Hernandez et al., Appellants, v Melvin C. Hochmanet al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Shaw, Licitra, Gulotta, Esernio & Henry, P.C. (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., Gina B. DiFolco,and Adonaid Casado of counsel), for respondent Melvin C. Hochman. Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Elizabeth GelfandKastner and Thaddeus Rozanski of counsel), for respondent New York Hospital Medical Centerof Queens.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., theplaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), datedFebruary 15, 2007, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Melvin C. Hochman,and the defendant New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar 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 the injury (see Roca v Perel, 51 AD3d 757[2008]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420, 421 [2003]). Both the defendant MelvinHochman and the defendant New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens (hereinafter NYHQ)demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by the submission ofextensive medical records and expert affidavits which established, to a reasonable [*2]degree of medical certainty, that neither Hochman nor NYHQdeparted from the accepted standard of care and that, in any event, any alleged acts or omissionswere not the proximate cause of the decedent's injuries (see generally Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562[1980]). The plaintiffs' submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact(see Zak v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp.Med. Ctr., 54 AD3d 852 [2008]; Glazer v Choong-Hee Lee, 51 AD3d 970 [2008], lv dismissedin part and denied in part 11 NY3d 781 [2008]; Worthy v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d 1023, 1024[2008]; Bullard v St. Barnabas Hosp.,27 AD3d 206 [2006]; Elliot vLong Is. Home, Ltd., 12 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly granted the respective motions of Hochman and NYHQ for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dickerson andBelen, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 30648(U).]