| Pinto v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., Inc. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04588 [107 AD3d 869] |
| June 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Susan Pinto, Respondent, v Putnam HospitalCenter, Inc., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Worby Groner Edelman, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Joel B. Savit and Sara ScheppsMatschke of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendantsappeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated May 25,2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for medicalmalpractice, alleging that the defendant Laura Huber adjusted the plaintiff's cane too low,causing the plaintiff to fall when she used the cane.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, an expert affirmation establishingthat Huber did not depart from accepted standards of care, and that any departure was nota proximate cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries (see Wexelbaum v Jean, 80 AD3d 756, 757 [2011]; Roca v Perel, 51 AD3d757, 758-759 [2008]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted affidavitsfrom her medical experts which raised triable issues of fact as to whether Huber departedfrom accepted standards of medical practice when adjusting the cane, and whether thatalleged departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries. "Where theparties offer conflicting expert opinions, issues of credibility arise requiring juryresolution" (Martin vSiegenfeld, 70 AD3d 786, 788 [2010]; see Colao v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 65 AD3d 660 [2009];Feinberg v Feit, 23 AD3d517, 519 [2005]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.