| Salvia v St. Catherine of Sienna Med. Ctr. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04227 [84 AD3d 1053] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lorraine Salvia, Respondent, v St. Catherine of SiennaMedical Center, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Levine & Grossman, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael B. Grossman of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant St. Catherine ofSienna Medical Center appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), dated June 18, 2009, as denied that branch of the defendants'motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of thedefendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against the defendant St. Catherine of Sienna Medical Center is granted.
In order to establish liability for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that thedefendant deviated or departed from accepted community standards of practice and that suchdeparture was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 23 [2011]; Heller v Weinberg, 77 AD3d 622[2010]). On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant has the burden of establishing theabsence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was notinjured thereby (Heller v Weinberg, 77 AD3d at 622-623). In opposition, a plaintiff mustsubmit evidentiary facts or materials to rebut the defendant's prima facie showing, so as todemonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 23-24 [2011]). "Generalallegations that are conclusory and unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish theessential elements of medical malpractice are insufficient to defeat summary judgment"(Heller v Weinberg, 77 AD3d at 623).
St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center, sued herein as St. Catherine of Sienna Medical Center(hereinafter the hospital), established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawdismissing the cause of action alleging medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it bysubmitting an expert physician's affidavit asserting that any alleged departures were not aproximate cause of the plaintiff's decedent's injuries and death. The plaintiff failed to raise atriable issue of fact regarding proximate cause sufficient to defeat that branch of the defendants'motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthe hospital (see Pichardo vHerrera-Acevedo, 77 AD3d 641, 641-642 [2010]; Raymundo v Westchester CountyMed. Ctr., 292 AD2d 437 [2002]; see also Stukas [*2]v Streiter, 83 AD3d18, 26 [2011]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motionwhich was summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the hospital.Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.