Love v. St. Charles Hospital

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against St. Charles Hospital dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The hospital submitted evidence, in the form of hospital documents, deposition transcripts and a physician’s affidavit, sufficient to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 , 562). Plaintiff and defendant doctors failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish a material issue of fact that requires a trial (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra, at 324 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra, at 562 ). The affidavit of plaintiff’s doctor is conclusory and unsupported by competent evidence. It fails to establish the elements of a medical malpractice or negligence cause of action against defendant hospital (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Because the doctors were independent physicians retained by the