Fotiou v. Goodman
| Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Citation | 905 N.Y.S.2d 626,74 A.D.3d 1140 |
| Parties | Pelagi FOTIOU, etc., et al., respondents, v. Allen GOODMAN, et al., appellants, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Vaslas Lepowsky Hauss & Danke, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Neil F. Schreffler of counsel), for appellants.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stephen C. Glasser and Mary Anne Walling of counsel), for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Allen Goodman, Storch, Sheinbrot & Singer, Physicians, P.C., and Storch, Sheinbrot & Singer, P.C., appealfrom so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated June 12, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In a medical malpractice action, the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby ( see Swezey v. Montague Rehab & Pain Mgt., P.C., 59 A.D.3d 431, 433, 872 N.Y.S.2d 199; Larsen v. Loychusuk, 55 A.D.3d 560, 866 N.Y.S.2d 217; Chance v. Felder, 33 A.D.3d 645, 823 N.Y.S.2d 172).
Here, the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to affirmatively demonstrate the merits of their defense and, as the moving party, could not carry their burden by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiffs' proof ( see Velasquez v. Gomez, 44 A.D.3d 649, 650-651, 843 N.Y.S.2d 368; Vittorio v. U-Haul Co., 52 A.D.3d 823, 861 N.Y.S.2d 726; Pappalardo v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 36 A.D.3d 878, 880, 829 N.Y.S.2d 173; Pace v. International Bus. Mach. Corp., 248 A.D.2d 690, 691, 670 N.Y.S.2d 543). As the appellants failed to meet their prima facie burden, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposing papers ( see Vera v. Soohoo, 41 A.D.3d 586, 588, 838 N.Y.S.2d 154; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
Moreover, contrary to the appellants' contentions, the apparent loss of the sonogram films does not require the dismissal of the pleadings. "Where a party did not discard crucial evidence in an effort to frustrate discovery, and cannot be presumed to be responsible for the disappearance of such evidence, spoliation sanctions are inappropriate" ( Cordero v. Mirecle Cab Corp., 51 A.D.3d 707, 709, 858 N.Y.S.2d 717; see O'Reilly v. Yavorskiy, 300 A.D.2d 456, 457, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stukas v. Streiter
...the opposing papers ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; Fotiou v. Goodman, 74 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626). The same logic that supports this rule—namely, that the nonmoving party is not required to raise a triable issue ......
-
Delishi v. Prop. Owner (usa) Llc
...614, 615, 585 N.Y.S.2d 894 (4th Dept. 1992) ] [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted] ); see also Fotiou v. Goodman, 74 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2d Dept. 2010]; Vittorio v. U–Haul Co., 52 A.D.3d 823, 823, 861 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2d Dept. 2008].) Putting aside the ineffective r......
-
Crosbie v. KBC Food Corp.
...samples. Furthermore, the plaintiff was prejudiced along with Gracefully by the loss of the cultures and samples (see Fotiou v. Goodman, 74 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626 ; Cordero v. Mirecle Cab Corp., 51 A.D.3d at 709, 858 N.Y.S.2d 717 ; 190 A.D.3d 687 Payano v. Milbrook Props., Ltd.......
-
Wall v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr.
...903 N.Y.S.2d 508, quoting Shahid v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 A.D.3d 800, 801, 850 N.Y.S.2d 519; see Fotiou v. Goodman, 74 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626;78 A.D.3d 1045Swezey v. Montague Rehab & Pain Mgt., P.C., 59 A.D.3d 431, 433, 872 N.Y.S.2d 199; Larsen v. Loychusuk, 5......
-
Basics of Real Evidence
...to demonstrate that the destroyed evidence was relevant and would have been unfavorable to the destroying party. Fotiou v. Goodman , 74 A.D.3d 1140, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y.A.D., 2010). The apparent loss of sonogram films did not require the dismissal of pleadings in a medical malpractice cas......
-
Requests for Inspection
...entitlement to an order striking the defendants’ answers for failure to comply with the applicable discovery orders. Fotiou v. Goodman , 74 A.D.3d 1140, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y.A.D., 2010). The apparent loss of sonogram films did not require the dismissal of pleadings in a medical malpractice......
-
Table of Cases
...Co., 174 Ill.App.3d 359, 529 N.E.2d 581 (1988), appeal denied, 124 Ill.2d 554, 535 N.E.2d 914 (1989), §48.201 Fotiou v. Goodman , 74 A.D.3d 1140, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y.A.D., 2010), §30.300 Fountain v. MARTA, 147 Ga.App. 465, 249 S.E.2d 296 (1978), §42.200 Fournier v. Erickson , 242 F.Supp.2......
-
Basics of Real Evidence
...to demonstrate that the destroyed evidence was relevant and would have been unfavorable to the destroying party. Fotiou v. Goodman , 74 A.D.3d 1140, 905 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y.A.D., 2010). The apparent loss of sonogram films did not require the dismissal of pleadings in a medical malpractice cas......