Wijesinghe v. Buena Vida Corp.
Docket: 2019-13615
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 8, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Wijesinghe v. Buena Vida Corp., the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a Supreme Court order that had denied summary judgment motions by defendants Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, Jude Ozuzu, and Bernard Chukwuneke in a medical malpractice case stemming from the treatment of Victor Wijesinghe after a slip-and-fall accident. The court found that the defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating either a lack of deviation from the standard of care or a lack of proximate cause for the plaintiff's injuries, shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to present evidentiary facts to counter the defendants' claims. The court emphasized that general allegations of malpractice without competent evidence are insufficient to oppose a summary judgment motion, and that expert opinions must specifically address the assertions made by the defendants' experts with proper reasoning and cited evidence. The motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing the complaint against the moving defendants. Ozuzu and Chukwuneke established their entitlement to summary judgment by presenting medical expert affirmations, the injured plaintiff's medical records, and deposition transcripts, demonstrating that they adhered to the standard of care and that any alleged deviations did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiffs' expert affirmation was deemed conclusory and speculative regarding proximate cause, failing to create a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment for Ozuzu and Chukwuneke, as well as for Wyckoff, their employer, since without primary liability, vicarious liability claims cannot stand. The plaintiffs' complaint did not present any other basis for liability, and the dismissal of the medical malpractice claim necessitated the dismissal of the related derivative claims. The plaintiffs' remaining argument was not properly before the Court.