Graziano v. Cooling
| Decision Date | 14 December 2010 |
| Parties | William GRAZIANO, respondent, v. David S. COOLING, etc., et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
79 A.D.3d 803
William GRAZIANO, respondent,
v.
David S. COOLING, etc., et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 14, 2010.
Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Susan M. Ulrich of counsel), for appellants.
Jeffrey J. Shapiro and Associates, LLC, Bedford, N.Y. (Steven Millon of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), entered September 23, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff alleges that he began to feel sick on night of September 27, 2004. On September 28, 2004, he went to the emergency room at Stony Brook Hospital, where he was seen by a triage nurse at 4:08 P.M., and a third-year medical student at 5:15 P.M. The defendant David S. Cooling, M.D., examined the plaintiff at 6:15 P.M. Cooling noted that the plaintiff had nasal congestion, nonproductive cough, sore throat, and nausea, had vomited once that morning, and had experienced sinus discomfort for a few days. Upon Cooling's examination, he observed that the plaintiff had rhinorrhea and a slightly infected pharynx, without exudates. Cooling noted that the plaintiff's pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light. The plaintiff was reported to be alert and oriented as to
At 6:25 P.M., the plaintiff was discharged with a diagnosis of
The morning after the plaintiff was seen by Cooling, the plaintiff's family brought him to their family doctor, in part, because the plaintiff was "not making any sense" when he spoke.
The plaintiff was referred by his family doctor to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosario v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing & Rehab. Care Ctr.
...related to any injuries sustained by the decedent (see Forrest v. Tierney, 91 A.D.3d 707, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 804, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302 ).In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from an expert which raised a triable issue of fact as to the nature......
-
Abrams v. Bute
...of individuals who are defendants in the case (see e.g. Hayden v. Gordon, 91 A.D.3d 819, 821, 937 N.Y.S.2d 299 ; Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 804, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302 ; Belak–Redl v. Bollengier, 74 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 903 N.Y.S.2d 508 ).In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit......
-
Rivers v. Birnbaum
...to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation ( see Forrest v. Tierney, 91 A.D.3d 707, 709, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295;Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 805, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of MacDonald's motion which was for summary judgment dismis......
-
Schussheim v. Barazani
...Care Corp., 120 A.D.3d 1287, 1290, 993 N.Y.S.2d 73 ; Forrest v. Tierney, 91 A.D.3d 707, 709, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 804–805, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302 ; DiMitri v. Monsouri, 302 A.D.2d 420, 421, 754 N.Y.S.2d 674 ). The plaintiff's reliance upon recommendations and dir......