| Calli v Forest View Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00744 [91 AD3d 898] |
| Jnury 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lawrence Calli, Respondent-Appellant, v Forest ViewCenter for Rehabilitation and Nursing, Inc., Respondent, and Precision Health, Inc., DoingBusiness as Medfax Portable Diagnostics, Appellant-Respondent, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Lawrence Levine, New York, N.Y., for respondent-appellant. Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Karen Corbett of counsel), forrespondent.
In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongfuldeath, the defendant Precision Health, Inc., doing business as Medfax Portable Diagnostics,appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(James J. Golia, J.), dated February 4, 2011, as denied that branch of its cross motion which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiffcross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the motion of thedefendant Forest View Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing, Inc., which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and that branch of themotion of the defendant Precision Health, Inc., doing business as Medfax Portable Diagnostics,which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it isgranted; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Forest View Center forRehabilitation and Nursing, Inc., and Precision Health, Inc., doing business as Medfax PortableDiagnostics, payable by the plaintiff.
The defendants Forest View Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing, Inc. (hereinafter ForestView), and Precision Health, Inc., doing business as Medfax Portable Diagnostics (hereinafterPrecision Health), each demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law[*2]dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each ofthem (see McLoughlin v SuffolkObstetrics & Gynecology, LLP, 85 AD3d 984, 985 [2011]; Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18[2011]; Breland v Jamaica Hosp. Med.Ctr., 49 AD3d 789, 790 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff's submissions, including theconclusory affirmation of his expert, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (seeAlvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]; Ahmed v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 84 AD3d 709,710 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Forest View'smotion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it,and should have granted that branch of Precision Health's cross motion which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Belenand Roman, JJ., concur.