DePasquale v. Staten Island University Hospital

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order denying Corneliu Vulpe's motion for summary judgment in a consolidated medical malpractice action. The court held that Vulpe established that he did not depart from accepted standards of care and that the plaintiffs' expert affirmation was speculative and conclusory, failing to raise a triable issue of fact.

Holdings

1. Vulpe established prima facie that he did not depart from accepted standards of care in treating DePasquale and was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact because their expert affirmation did not specifically cite evidence in the record or address the specific opinions of Vulpe's expert; the affirmation was therefore speculative and conclusory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vulpe established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that he did not depart from accepted standards of medical care.
2. Whether the plaintiffs' expert affirmation raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat Vulpe's summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

reversed