Santangelo v. Crouse Medical Group, P. C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants. The affidavits of the treating physician and the expert, setting forth the procedures followed in the examination of plaintiff and stating that the examination was conducted in accordance with accepted standards of medical care, are sufficient to establish defendants’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325; Wert v Lenox Hill Hosp., 151 AD2d 474, lv denied 74 NY2d 613; Wind v Cacho, 111 AD2d 808). In opposition to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Pipers v. RosenowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Wind v. CachoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Quigley v. JabburAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Wert v. Lenox Hill HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cygan v. Kaleida HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Kremer v. Buffalo General HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Doyle v. Health Care Plan, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- States v. Lourdes HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Laribee v. City of RomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.