Drago v. King

• Decision Date: 29 May 2001
• Citation: Drago v. King, 283 AD2d 603, 725 NYS2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
• Parties: SARAH DRAGO et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>KATHERINE C. H. KING et al., Defendants, and CENTRAL GENERAL HOSPITAL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

283 A.D.2d 603

725 N.Y.S.2d 859

SARAH DRAGO et al., Respondents,

v.KATHERINE C. H. KING et al., Defendants, and CENTRAL GENERAL HOSPITAL, Appellant.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that "[t]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case * * * Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Allen v Blum, 212 AD2d 562; Indelicato v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 205 AD2d 664). Furthermore, bare allegations which do not refute the specific factual allegations of medical malpractice in the bill of particulars are insufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Allen v Blum, supra; Indelicato v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., supra). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellant did not meet its burden, since its medical experts did not...