| Anonymous v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04529 [73 AD3d 1104] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Anonymous et al., Appellants, v Wyckoff Heights MedicalCenter et al., Defendants, and Nagendra Sagar Katari, Respondent. |
—[*1] Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ellen B. Fishman and Sean F.X. Dugan ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limitedby their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), datedJuly 31, 2008, as granted the motion of the defendant Nagendra Sagar Katari for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departurefrom accepted community standards of practice and evidence that such departure was aproximate cause of injury or damage. On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant doctorhas the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medicalpractice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby. In opposition, the plaintiff must submit aphysician's affidavit attesting to the defendant's departure from accepted practice, whichdeparture was a competent producing cause of the injury. General allegations that are conclusoryand unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the essential elements of medicalmalpractice are insufficient to defeat summary judgment" (Flanagan v Catskill RegionalMed. Ctr., 65 AD3d 563, 565 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];see Lowhar v Eva Stern 500, LLC, 70 AD3d 654, 654-655 [2010]).
Here, the defendant Nagendra Sagar Katari established his prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, an expert physician's affirmation assertingthat he did not deviate from the relevant standard of care. In opposition, the plaintiffs' expertsubmissions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d320, 324 [1986]; Shahid v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 800, 802[2008]; Rebozo v Wilen, 41 AD3d 457, 459 [2007]; Thompson v Orner, 36AD3d 791, 792 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Katari's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Dillon, J.P.,Santucci, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.