| Dorsett v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01651 [93 AD3d 631] |
| March 6, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bridget Murray Dorsett, Appellant, v Kingsbrook JewishMedical Center et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), forrespondents Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center and Sabina Afridi. Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stewart G. Milch, Sean F.X. Dugan, andOlimpio A. Russo of counsel), for respondent Jayaprakash Modi.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated October 4, 2010, which granted themotion of the defendants Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center and Sabina Afridi and the separatemotion of the defendant Jayaprakash Modi for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against each of them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
The defendants Kingsbrook Medical Center and Sabina Afridi (hereinafter together theKingsbrook defendants) and the defendant Jayaprakash Modi demonstrated their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthem. The expert affirmations of Dr. Daniel Sajewski and Dr. Mark Rosen, as well as the medicalrecords of the plaintiff's decedent and the transcripts of the depositions of Modi and Afridi,established that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice by Modi or theKingsbrook defendants with respect to their treatment of the plaintiff's decedent, who was foundwith a very faded pulse, not breathing, and lying face down in vomit (see Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18[2011]; Breland v Jamaica Hosp. Med.Ctr., 49 AD3d 789 [2008]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420 [2003]). Theplaintiff's submissions in opposition to the motions, including the conclusory affirmation of theplaintiff's expert, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Deutsch v Chaglassian, 71 AD3d718 [2010]; Dunn v Khan, 62AD3d 828 [2009]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d at 421).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted Modi's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and the separate motion of theKingsbrook defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst [*2]them. Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman,JJ., concur.