Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtWACHTLER; MEYER
Citation487 N.Y.S.2d 316,64 N.Y.2d 851
Decision Date12 February 1985
Parties, 476 N.E.2d 642 Muriel WINEGRAD et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, and Joseph Jacobs et al., Respondents.

Page 316

487 N.Y.S.2d 316
64 N.Y.2d 851, 476 N.E.2d 642
Muriel WINEGRAD et al., Appellants,
v.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant,
and
Joseph Jacobs et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Feb. 12, 1985.

Page 317

Abraham A. Salm, New York City, for appellants.

Martin Wendel, Rahway, N.J., for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 104 A.D.2d 748, 480 N.Y.S.2d 472, should be reversed, with costs, the individual defendants' cross motion for summary judgment denied, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues not reached on the appeal to that court.

In this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, plaintiffs in a verified complaint and bill of particulars alleged that defendant Jacobs failed to check Mrs. Winegrad's medical history before undertaking to perform surgery on the tissues surrounding her eyes, and allowed administration of anesthesia without checking this history; that during the course of this minor surgery she went into shock and developed cardiac arrhythmia; that defendants Ross and Pasternack treated her and administered drugs for a blood clot and heart condition which were unnecessary and actually were incompatible with her condition; and that defendant Jacobs wrongfully left the surgery incomplete after representing to her that it had been completed.

In response to plaintiffs' motion to direct that defendants' answers be stricken on account of their failure to appear for depositions, defendants sought summary judgment, tendering in support of their cross motion only the brief affidavit of each asserting that the pertinent medical records had been reviewed. Each affidavit further contained the following identical paragraph: "I now state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that I did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices in my treatment of plaintiff, nor did anything I do [sic ] or allegedly failed to do proximately cause the plaintiff's alleged injuries. Therefore, I should not have been named as a defendant in the above-entitled action." Defendant Jacobs, in addition, acknowledged that he had attempted to perform a blepharoplasty on plaintiff, which was not completed since she developed cardiac arrhythmia. In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiffs submitted only their counsel's affidavit complaining of defendants' failure to appear for depositions. Special Term granted plaintiffs'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7252 practice notes
  • Weinberg v. Picker, Index No.: 510746/2015
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 24, 2017
    ...of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985). Once there is a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to thePage 3 party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evi......
  • Dominguez v. Algieri, 2020-34863
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 26, 2020
    ...any material issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]). The burden then shifts to the party opposing the motion which must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form suf......
  • Lennon v. 56th & Park(NY) Owner, LLC, 2018–07336
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 15, 2021
    ...entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of their collateral estoppel defense (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 ; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 559, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; Friends of Ani......
  • Francis v. Mount Vernon Bd. of Educ., 2016–07803
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 29, 2018
    ...judgment should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition 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 ).As to the plaintiff's cross motion, I agree with my colleagues in the majority that the sanction of s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7344 cases
  • Weinberg v. Picker, Index No.: 510746/2015
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 24, 2017
    ...of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985). Once there is a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to thePage 3 party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evi......
  • Dominguez v. Algieri, 2020-34863
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 26, 2020
    ...any material issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]). The burden then shifts to the party opposing the motion which must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form suf......
  • Lennon v. 56th & Park(NY) Owner, LLC, 2018–07336
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 15, 2021
    ...entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of their collateral estoppel defense (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 ; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 559, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; Friends of Ani......
  • Francis v. Mount Vernon Bd. of Educ., 2016–07803
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 29, 2018
    ...judgment should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition 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 ).As to the plaintiff's cross motion, I agree with my colleagues in the majority that the sanction of s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT