| Lieber v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02465 [94 AD3d 715] |
| April 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Irene Lieber, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein, KathyH. Chang, and Amy G. London of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, theplaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated June 1,2011, which granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and New York City FireDepartment for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpracticeand wrongful death against, among others, the City of New York and the New York City FireDepartment (hereinafter together the defendants). The plaintiff alleged that the paramedics whoresponded to her 911 call seeking medical assistance for her husband (hereinafter the decedent)were negligent in their care and treatment of the decedent, resulting in his death.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawthrough, inter alia, the submission of the affidavit of one of the paramedics who responded to the911 call, the ambulance call report, and the defendants' expert affirmation. The defendants' expertopined, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the paramedics did not depart fromgood and accepted standards of emergency medical care during the treatment rendered to thedecedent and that, in any event, the treatment did not proximately cause the decedent's death (see Forrest v Tierney, 91 AD3d707 [2012]; Graziano vCooling, 79 AD3d 803, 804 [2010]).
In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a physician who was not authorizedby law to practice in this State, and, thus, the affirmation did not constitute competent evidence(see CPLR 2106; Worthy vGood Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 50 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2008]; Palo v Latt, 270AD2d 323 [2000]). Moreover, the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition tothe defendants' motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the SupremeCourt correctly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them. Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.