Gentile v. Malihan
Decision Date | 22 January 2020 |
Docket Number | 2016-12706,Index No. 101700/11 |
Citation | 179 A.D.3d 902,116 N.Y.S.3d 657 |
Parties | Jodie GENTILE, et al., Respondents, v. Amie A. MALIHAN, etc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
179 A.D.3d 902
116 N.Y.S.3d 657
Jodie GENTILE, et al., Respondents,
v.
Amie A. MALIHAN, etc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
2016-12706
Index No. 101700/11
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—October 30, 2019
January 22, 2020
DeCorato Cohen Sheehan & Federico, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Anthony Lugara and Amanda L. Tate of counsel), for appellant Amie A. Malihan.
Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Alexandra K. Formica of counsel), for appellant Gary Spierer.
Dwight D. Joyce, Stony Point, N.Y. (Stephen J. Cole–Hatchard of counsel), for respondents.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Amie A. Malihan and Gary Spierer separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kim Dollard, J.), dated September 9, 2016. The order denied the motion of the defendant Amie A. Malihan and the separate motion of the defendant Gary Spierer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
On April 23, 2010, the plaintiff Jodie Gentile (hereinafter the plaintiff) underwent a surgery performed by the defendant Amie A. Malihan, a plastic surgeon, to correct a "bulge" in her
abdominal area and to excise two scars resulting from prior cesarean section incisions. On this date, the plaintiff also underwent a bilateral tubal ligation surgery, which was performed by the defendant Gary Spierer, an obstetrician/gynecologist. Following these surgeries, the plaintiff developed a hematoma, required multiple blood suctions/aspirations, and underwent a second operative procedure on May 9, 2010.
In 2011, the plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against, among others, Spierer and Malihan, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice. After the completion of discovery, Spierer and Malihan separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The Supreme Court denied both motions. Spierer and Malihan separately appeal.
" ‘The essential elements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fuessel v. Chin
...that Chin was not its employee, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, 179 A.D.3d 902 prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Good Samaritan's emergency room seeking treatment from a privately selected physician rather than from......
-
Helkowski v. Goodman
...entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact (Gentile v Malihan, supra). Court finds, after affording the non-movant plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (Dockery v. Sprecher, 68 A.D.3d 1043 [2nd D......
-
Many v. Lossef
...which are to be resolved by the factfinder (see Pinnock v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 180 A.D.3d 1088, 1090, 119 N.Y.S.3d 559 ; Gentile v. Malihan, 179 A.D.3d 902, 904, 116 N.Y.S.3d 657 ). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert does not contain concluso......
-
Ciorciari v. Elant at Fishkill, Inc.
...judgment filed by HVHOA and Dr. Schaefer-Cutillo is denied as to this claimed departure by Dr. Schaefer-Cutillo [Gentile v. Malihan, 179 A.D.3d 902 (2d Dept. 2020); Kovacic v Griffin, 170 A.D.3d 1143 (2d Dept. 2019)]. The Court also finds that the parties' submissions establish the existenc......