Case Name: Janessa Jordan, Appellant, v. Maria Raccuglia, Respondent, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-03
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: Janessa Jordan, Appellant, v Maria Raccuglia, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 2015]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Janessa Jordan, Appellant, v Maria Raccuglia, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
[25 NYS3d 623]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger J.), entered on or about March 12, 2015, which granted defendant Dr. Maria Raccuglia's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an expert's affirmation, showing that her treatment of plaintiff was within good and accepted medical practice and was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728 [1st Dept 2012]). The record shows that blood tests revealed that plaintiff tested positive for a virus and defendant prescribed an appropriate medication.
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although subsequent blood tests showed that she did not suffer from the subject virus, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any of her alleged injuries were caused by the medication that defendant prescribed. Rather, the evidence showed that plaintiff did not take the dosage of medication that was prescribed, that she suffered from her headaches prior to being prescribed the medication and that her other alleged injuries were unrelated to the medication (see e.g. Pullman v Silverman, 125 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept
2015]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.