McGraw v. Capuano
| Decision Date | 26 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 21904/12,2018–02028 |
| Citation | 101 N.Y.S.3d 627 (Mem),173 A.D.3d 1167 |
| Parties | Alyssa MCGRAW, Respondent, v. Mario J. CAPUANO, etc., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
173 A.D.3d 1167
101 N.Y.S.3d 627 (Mem)
Alyssa MCGRAW, Respondent,
v.
Mario J. CAPUANO, etc., et al., Appellants.
2018–02028
Index No. 21904/12
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—April 22, 2019
June 26, 2019
Fumuso, Kelly, Swart, Farrell, Polin & Christesen LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Scott G. Christesen of counsel), for appellants.
The Latronica Law Firm, P.C., Levittown, N.Y. (Christian Siragusa and Patricia A. Hatcliffe of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph C. Pastoressa, J.), dated December 11, 2017. The order granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated April 3, 2017, and, upon renewal, in effect, vacated the order dated April 3, 2017, and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order dated December 11, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for dental malpractice and lack of informed consent. Following the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert submitted in opposition to the motion was conclusory and lacked a foundation because the expert did not set forth the documents he reviewed in forming his opinion. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' motion and submitted an amended expert affidavit which set forth the documents the expert reviewed to form...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. City of N.Y.
...of a lighting scrim, secured to the exterior of the broadcast booth with screw-based C-clamps, involved no significant physical 173 A.D.3d 1167 change to a structure (see Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co., 25 N.Y.3d at 125, 8 N.Y.S.3d 229, 30 N.E.3d 872 ; Lannon v. 356 W. 44th St. Rest., Inc., 1......
-
Palladino v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...that the floor of the elevator was approximately three to six inches higher than the hallway landing, and that this misleveling caused 101 N.Y.S.3d 627 him to stumble as he stepped into the elevator. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action against the N......