| McKenzie v Clarke |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07152 [77 AD3d 637] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Monee McKenzie, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian,Simona Graham, Respondent, v Heather Clarke et al., Defendants, and Louis D. Camilien,Appellant. |
—[*1] The Pagan Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Tania M. Pagan of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Louis D.Camilien appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Jackson, J.), dated February 17, 2009, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submittingexpert affirmations which demonstrated that he did not depart from good and accepted medicalpractice in his treatment of the plaintiff, and that his treatment was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff'sinjuries (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Sheenan-Conrades v Winifred Masterson BurkeRehabilitation Hosp., 51 AD3d 769, 770 [2008]; Rebozo v Wilen, 41 AD3d 457, 458 [2007]; Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 368[2004]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of three experts which weresufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to whether the appellant departed from good and acceptedmedical practice and whether such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Boutin v Bay Shore Family Health Ctr.,59 AD3d 368 [2009]; Roca vPerel, 51 AD3d 757, 759 [2008]). Summary judgment may not be awarded in a medicalmalpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting opinions of medical experts (see Shields v Baktidy, 11 AD3d 671,672 [2004]; Barbuto v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 AD2d 623, 624 [2003]). Accordingly, theappellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him wasproperly denied. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.