New York Law Review

Tag: Conclusory Affidavit

  • Diaz v. New York Downtown Hospital, 99 N.Y.2d 542 (2002): Sufficiency of Expert Testimony to Rebut Summary Judgment Motion in Negligence

    Diaz v. New York Downtown Hosp., 99 N.Y.2d 542 (2002)

    A medical expert’s conclusory assertion of negligence, based solely on conflicting test results without addressing the defendant’s evidence of non-negligence, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary judgment.

    Summary

    In this medical negligence case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant laboratory. The defendant presented evidence demonstrating the blood test was properly performed and a negative result was possible even with a later positive result. The plaintiff’s expert provided a conclusory affidavit stating the defendant’s negative result was erroneous because of the subsequent positive result. The Court of Appeals held that the expert’s conclusory statement, without more, failed to raise a triable issue of fact because it did not address the defendant’s evidence that different results could occur absent negligence.

    Facts

    The decedent had a blood test performed by the defendant laboratory. The test result was negative. Two months later, another laboratory performed a blood test on the decedent, and the result was positive. The plaintiff, presumably the decedent’s representative, brought a negligence action against the defendant laboratory, alleging the initial negative test result was erroneous and caused harm. The defendant laboratory moved for summary judgment.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court initially ruled on the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the affidavit of the plaintiff’s medical expert was sufficient to raise a material issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, where the defendant presented a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment.

    Holding

    No, because the expert’s conclusory assertion that the defendant’s negative result was erroneous, based solely on the subsequent positive result, raised no issue of fact given the defendant’s evidence that different results were possible absent negligence.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that a party opposing summary judgment must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant laboratory demonstrated that the blood test was properly performed, it did not interpret the results, and the negative result could have been correct despite the later positive result. This established a prima facie case for summary judgment, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue.

    The court found the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit insufficient because it merely asserted that the defendant’s negative result was erroneous because of the later positive result. The court noted that the expert did not address or rebut the defendant’s evidence that different test results could occur without any negligence on the part of the laboratory. The court emphasized that an expert’s conclusory assertions, without supporting factual basis, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Quoting "even if plaintiffs proof were fully credited by a fact finder, defendant has offered proof to the effect that there could be different results without any negligence, and plaintiff has offered nothing further to indicate defendant’s negligence in this case." Therefore, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s negligence. The court cited Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 and Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853.

  • Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985): Establishing Prima Facie Entitlement for Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice

    Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985)

    A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact; bare, conclusory assertions are insufficient to meet this burden, particularly when the moving party possesses superior knowledge of the facts.

    Summary

    In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs alleged negligence by the defendants during and after a blepharoplasty. The defendants sought summary judgment, submitting affidavits with conclusory statements denying negligence. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment because their affidavits lacked specific factual support and merely contained conclusory denials of negligence. The court emphasized that the moving party must present sufficient evidence to eliminate material issues of fact, and the defendants’ affidavits failed to do so.

    Facts

    Mrs. Winegrad underwent a blepharoplasty performed by Dr. Jacobs. During the procedure, she experienced shock and cardiac arrhythmia. Subsequently, Drs. Ross and Pasternack treated her, administering drugs allegedly incompatible with her condition. The plaintiffs claimed Dr. Jacobs also misrepresented that the surgery was complete when it was not. The plaintiffs’ verified complaint and bill of particulars detailed these allegations.

    Procedural History

    Plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants’ answers for failure to appear for depositions. The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits stating they reviewed medical records and did not deviate from accepted medical practices. Special Term granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied the cross-motion. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendants, as the moving parties, presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact and establish entitlement to summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, based solely on affidavits containing conclusory denials of negligence.

    Holding

    No, because the defendants’ affidavits contained only bare, conclusory assertions that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices, lacking specific factual support demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that a summary judgment movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Citing Zuckerman v. City of New York, the court reiterated that the moving party must tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact. The court found the defendants’ affidavits insufficient because they merely asserted a lack of deviation from accepted medical practices without providing any factual basis to support this claim. The court noted that the plaintiffs, in their verified pleadings, described specific injuries allegedly caused by the defendants’ negligence, and Dr. Jacobs acknowledged that the surgery was not completed due to the plaintiff’s cardiac arrhythmia. Given these circumstances, the court reasoned that the defendants’ conclusory statements failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ cause of action lacked merit. The court stated, “On this record, the bare conclusory assertions echoed by all three defendants that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practices, with no factual relationship to the alleged injury, do not establish that the cause of action has no merit so as to entitle defendants to summary judgment.” The court distinguished the case from instances where more detailed factual showings were presented. The court reversed the Appellate Division order, reinstating the denial of the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and remitting the case for consideration of unresolved issues.