Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A New York appellate court held that summary judgment in favor of the defense was not warranted in a case where the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether a hospital had breached the applicable standard of care.

The estate of Antonia Kuzmenko sued Staten Island University Hospital, alleging failure to timely diagnose and treat a stroke. The hospital moved for summary judgment at the completion of discovery. The trial court granted the motion.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing that there was no departure from the standard of care and that any alleged departure was not the proximate cause of the alleged injury. Citing case law, the court added that generally, summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties proffer conflicting medical expert opinions.

Here, the court said, the defendant’s expert opined that the hospital had obtained a proper medical history from Kuzmenko and that the hospital’s treatment was not the proximate cause of her injuries. The plaintiff offered an affirmation from an ER physician who stated that hospital staff had failed to take a thorough history and provide an interpreter for this purpose.

The court concluded that, therefore, the plaintiff had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a departure from the standard of care that decreased the patient’s chances of a better outcome or increased her injuries. Consequently, the court held that the trial court should have denied the defendant summary judgment.

Citation: Hanna v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 220 N.Y.S.3d 424 (App. Div. 2024).