| Lahara v Auteri |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05728 [97 AD3d 799] |
| July 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vincenzo Lahara, Appellant, v Paul Auteri et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Furey, Kerley, Walsh, Matera & Cinquemani, P.C., Seaford, N.Y.(Rosemary Cinquemani and Lauren B. Bristol of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated July 11, 2011, which grantedthe defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment ofthe same court dated September 6, 2011, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendants andagainst him, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appealtherefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for reviewand have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law byestablishing, through the deposition testimony, medical records, and the affirmation of theirexpert, that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, and, in any event,that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Garrett v University Assoc. inObstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 95 AD3d 823 [2012]; Lau v Wan, 93 AD3d 763 [2012];Brady v Westchester County HealthcareCorp., 78 AD3d 1097 [2010]). The conclusions of the defendants' expert were supportedby the medical records and deposition testimony (see Arkin v Resnick, 68 AD3d 692 [2009]).
The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The expert [*2]affirmation submitted by the plaintiff was conclusory, speculative,and without basis in the record, and, thus, was insufficient to defeat the defendants' motion forsummary judgment (see Lau v Wan, 93 AD3d at 765; Grosskopf v 8320 Parkway Towers Corp., 88 AD3d 765 [2011]).Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.