| McLoughlin v Suffolk Obstetrics & Gynecology, LLP |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05464 [85 AD3d 984] |
| June 21, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Holly McLoughlin, Appellant, v Suffolk Obstetrics &Gynecology, LLP, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Bower Monte & Greene P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mitchell A. Greene of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited byher brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated May24, 2010, as granted the motion of the defendants Suffolk Obstetrics and Gynecology, LLP, PaulLograno, and St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants Suffolk Obstetrics and Gynecology, LLP, Paul Lograno, and St. CharlesHospital and Rehabilitation Center (hereinafter collectively the defendants), demonstrated theirprima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an expert affirmation, aswell as the examinations before trial of the plaintiff's treating physicians, which establish thatthere was no departure from good and accepted medical practice with respect to the plaintiff'spost-operative treatment (see Stukas vStreiter, 83 AD3d 18 [2011]; Breland v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 49 AD3d 789 [2008];DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420 [2003]). The plaintiff's submissions in opposition tothe motion, including the conclusory affirmation of the plaintiff's expert, were insufficient toraise a triable issue of fact (see Deutschv Chaglassian, 71 AD3d 718, 719 [2010]; Dunn v Khan, 62 AD3d 828, 829 [2009]; DiMitri vMonsouri, 302 AD2d at 421).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin,Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.