acceptable standard in New York

1973Satisfactory evidence has been held to be an acceptable standard of proof when promulgated in the board’s own rules (see Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U. S. 4 , supra) .

1973Warren v. Mancusi, 40 A D 2d 279). “ Satisfactory evidence ’■’ is an acceptable standard of proof in parole revocation hearings (cf Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U. S. 4 ).

2015Defendant correctly notes that plaintiff still needed to obtain site plan approval by the Planning Board, and the EPA needed to grant the tap-in waiver request before the property could be developed, but plaintiff established that those actions were certainties (see Magee, 88 NY2d at 52-53 ).

2015Finally, the resolution did not simply withdraw the tap-in waiver request, but emphatically stated that the Town Board was “terminating] said commercial project.” In sum, plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence that the Town’s conduct was solely politically motivated and thus that the Town Board’s action was without legal justification (see Magee, 88 NY2d at 53 ).

2015The plaintiff failed to submit an expert’s affidavit stating with specificity the acceptable standard of medical care and the defendant’s alleged deviations therefrom so as to demonstrate that she has a potentially meritorious cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice (see Fulton v Marathon Dental Servs., P.C., 100 AD3d 959 [2012]; Williams v D’Angelo, 24 AD3d 538 [2005]; Yousian v New York Med.

2015The plaintiff failed to submit an expert’s affidavit stating with specificity the acceptable standard of medical care and the defendant’s alleged deviations therefrom so as to demonstrate that she has a potentially meritorious cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice (see Fulton v Marathon Dental Servs., P.C., 100 AD3d 959 [2012]; Williams v D’Angelo, 24 AD3d 538 [2005]; Yousian v New York Med.

2008Bollino v Hitzig, 34 AD3d 711 [2006]).

2006For this reason, the defect was waived (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, supra at 722 n 6). 2 Turning to the merits of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Matter of Oefelein v Town of Thompson Planning Bd., 9 AD3d 556 , 558 n 1 [2004]), we find that even though he met his initial burden to establish a prima facie case by the tender of an expert affidavit opining that there was no deviation from an acceptable standard of care, a question of fact was raised by plaintiffs’ responsive expert’s affidavit which challenged such conclusion (see Benfer v Sachs, 3 AD3d 781, 782 [2004])

2006For this reason, the defect was waived (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, supra at 722 n 6). 2 Turning to the merits of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Matter of Oefelein v Town of Thompson Planning Bd., 9 AD3d 556 , 558 n 1 [2004]), we find that even though he met his initial burden to establish a prima facie case by the tender of an expert affidavit opining that there was no deviation from an acceptable standard of care, a question of fact was raised by plaintiffs’ responsive expert’s affidavit which challenged such conclusion (see Benfer v Sachs, 3 AD3d 781, 782 [2004])

2004Failure to read the handbook is not an acceptable defense (see Matter of Perkins [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 679 [1998]).

1996As the appellants’ motion is unsupported by an expert’s affidavit establishing that the aforementioned protocols comport with an acceptable standard of care in the profession of midwifery, it was properly denied, regardless of the nature and quality of the opposing papers (see, e.g., Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999 ; Winegrad v New York Univ.

1990In Matter of Maria F. ( 104 Misc 2d 319 , supra), the father was denied disclosure by way of oral deposition of his 12-year-old child, the court holding it was not appropriate to direct a child of tender years to appear for an examination before trial in an abuse proceeding.

1990In Matter of Carew ( 131 Misc 2d 835 , supra), the court denied the father’s application for psychiatric examination of the subject children by his own psychiatrist, reasoning that the role of expert testimony where experts are hired by the respective parties differs in tort, criminal, and condemnation cases, from an acceptable standard in child abuse proceedings, where the subject of the examination is the child.

1989Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that defendant Redfield committed malpractice by failing to advise Susan Winje or warn the other defendant doctors that their prior prescription of Provera and Premarin was inappropriate is insufficient to defeat Dr. Redfield’s summary judgment motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Witt v Agin, 112 AD2d 64 , affd 67 NY2d 919 ; Fileccia v Massapequa Gen.

1989Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that defendant Redfield committed malpractice by failing to advise Susan Winje or warn the other defendant doctors that their prior prescription of Provera and Premarin was inappropriate is insufficient to defeat Dr. Redfield’s summary judgment motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Witt v Agin, 112 AD2d 64 , affd 67 NY2d 919 ; Fileccia v Massapequa Gen.

1989Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that defendant Redfield committed malpractice by failing to advise Susan Winje or warn the other defendant doctors that their prior prescription of Provera and Premarin was inappropriate is insufficient to defeat Dr. Redfield’s summary judgment motion (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Witt v Agin, 112 AD2d 64 , affd 67 NY2d 919 ; Fileccia v Massapequa Gen.

1983Special Term dismissed the petition without taking proof finding that “[i]t is well recognized that party affiliation may be an acceptable requirement for some forms of government employment.” The affidavits in the record, we find, are insufficient to support a holding that respondents have demonstrated as a matter of law that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the office (see Branti v Finkel, supra, p 518 ).

1977His availability should be a substantial factor contributing to the reliability of the fact-finding process.” ( 38 NY2d, at p 82 .) Indeed a formal acknowledgment of paternity, apparently found in Trimble to be an acceptable requirement, obviously entails personal participation by the father during his lifetime.

1968The acceptable test for determining an employer-employee relationship, based upon the extent of the agent’s control, is that laid down in Cosmopolitan Co. v. McAllister ( 337 U. S. 783 ).

1962The more acceptable rule would appear to be that degrees of negligence are matters of proof, not of averment; and that general allegations of negligence will support a recovery either for ordinary or gross negligence (cf. Castro v. Singh, 131 Cal. App. 106 ).