Haase v Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home

Haase v Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home 2009 NY Slip Op 04194 [62 AD3d 948] May 26, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Alicia Haase, Appellant,
v
Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home, Also Known as Bishop Sherman Nursing Home, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

—[*1] Fine, Fine & Associates, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Scott J. Fine and Robert P. Baquet of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Philip J. DeNoia of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated December 13, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendants Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home, also known as Bishop Sherman Nursing Home, St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Episcopal Health Services, Inc., and Church Charity Foundation of Long Island, also known as Church Charity Foundation, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion of the defendants Bishop Jonathan G. Sherman Episcopal Nursing Home, also known as Bishop Sherman Nursing Home, St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Episcopal Health Services, Inc., and Church Charity Foundation of Long Island, also known as Church Charity Foundation, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In support of their motion, the moving defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Wechter v Kelner, 40 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff's speculative and conclusory assertions failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Daleo v James, 52 AD3d 766, 767 [2008]; Vitale v Levine, 44 AD3d 935, 936 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.