Opinion
March 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well established that: "To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant movant has the burden of showing that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case; the plaintiff's evidence must be accepted as true, and plaintiff must be given the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from that evidence (Nicholas v. Reason, 84 A.D.2d 915). The motion should be granted only if there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff as against the moving defendant (Siegel, N Y Prac § 402; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 4401.05).
"In order to survive a trial motion to dismiss at the end of her case, plaintiff was required to make a prima facie showing that the defendant failed to exercise such reasonable care and diligence in his treatment of her as would be expected of the average member of his profession in the locality at the time of treatment (Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N.Y. 201, 209-210; Nicholas v Reason, supra), and that plaintiff's injury proximately resulted from defendant's departure from the required standard of performance (Nicholas v. Reason, supra)" (Hylick v. Halweil, 112 A.D.2d 400).
In this case, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing, prima facie, that his subdural hematoma and hydrocephalus resulted from any malpractice on the part of the defendant doctors. Accordingly, upon the said defendants' motion, the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint at the close of his case as against them. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.