Opinion
October 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, and that branch of the defendant Mastroda's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him and the cross claim asserted against him is denied.
Dr. Mastroda's bare and conclusory assertions that he "did not deviate from good and accepted standards of medical practice in [his] treatment of the plaintiffs" and that "nothing [he] did or did not do was a proximate cause of the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs in this case", without any factual relationship to the alleged injury, are insufficient to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851; Wertheimer v Paley, 137 A.D.2d 680). Nor does the fact that Dr. Mastroda did not examine the infant plaintiff after delivering him entitle Dr. Mastroda to summary judgment, as one of the allegations contained in the complaint is that this failure constituted malpractice (cf., Neuman v Greenstein, 99 A.D.2d 1018). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.