The following papers were read upon this motion: Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause XXXXXX Answering Papers XXX Reply XX Briefs: Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s Defendant’s/Respondent’s Decision/Order Defendants Alter (Sequence 003), St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center (SCSMC) (Sequence 004) and Mayerson (Seq 005) each move for summary judgment dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint as alleged against each of them. Plaintiffs do not oppose any of these motions, stating that they are willing to voluntarily discontinue this action against each of the moving defendants; however, plaintiffs cross-move to compel each of the moving defendants to sign stipulations of discontinuance containing certain language striking the CPLR Article 16 affirmative defenses contained in the defendants’ respective answers (Sequences 006, 007, 008). The moving defendants oppose the cross-motions, contending that any Article 16 claims would be extinguished as a matter of law by granting summary judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the moving defendants are each granted summary judgment upon the unopposed Motion Sequences 003, 004, and 005, and plaintiffs’ cross-motion Sequences 006, 007 and 008 are each denied as moot. Motion Sequences 003, 004, and 005-The Summary Judgment Motions The amended verified complaint alleges a cause of action for malpractice against each of the defendants, a cause of action for lack of informed consent lodged against all the defendants, and a cause of action against all defendants based upon joint, several and vicarious liability. Plaintiff, a long-time patient of Dr. Alter’s, presented to the emergency department of SCSMC on February 22, 2006 as the result of her falling at her home, possibly by slipping out of her wheelchair onto the floor. At the time of her presentation to the hospital, plaintiff’s decedent (hereinafter, plaintiff) was seventy-two (72) years old, with a history of neurological issues, COPD, subarachnoid hemorrhage, difficulty walking, hand muscle weakness, dementia and ataxia resulting in gait abnormality. Plaintiff complained of an inability to stand when she arrived at the emergency department, but she could move her arms and legs. Essentially, plaintiff claims that as a result of the defendants’ acts of malpractice, including a failure to timely diagnose and treat her spinal cord compression, she suffered numerous injuries, including partial paralysis of her lower extremities. Wrongful death is not claimed here. Plaintiff died in 2007 unrelated to her spine surgery and cord compression injury. None of the moving defendants’ amended answers asserts any cross-claims. Dr. Alter was plaintiff’s internist; Dr. Mayerson performed a neurological consult on plaintiff, and defendant Marc Chernoff, M.D. was the orthopedic surgeon who eventually operated on plaintiff on March 4, 2006. Plaintiff was admitted under the service of Dr. Alter on February 22, 2006 and was ultimately discharged on March 28, 2006, to a rehabilitation facility. Currently, plaintiff is proceeding only against Dr. Chernoff. Dr. Chernoff’s answer does not assert any cross-claims, and Dr. Chernoff does not oppose the instant summary judgment motions. Summary judgment should only be granted where the court finds as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact (Cauthers v. Brite Ideas, LLC, 41 AD3d 755 [2d Dept 2007]). The Court’s analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, herein the plaintiff (Makaj v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 18 AD3d 625 [2d Dept 2005]). The proponent of a summary judgment motion must tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence any material issue of fact (Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 MY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Id.) “Once this showing has been made, however, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “‘The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted community standards of practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury or damage’” (Whitnum v. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.C., 142 AD3d 495 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Geffner v. North Shore University Hospital, 57 AD3d 839, 842 [2d Dept 2008]). A defendant “moving for summary judgment must establish, prima facie, either that there was no departure or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries” (Leigh v. Kyle, 143 AD3d 779 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Gillespie v. New York Hospital Queens, 96 AD3d 901, 902 [2d Dept 2012]). Each of the moving defendants has submitted, inter alia, medical records, deposition testimony of the parties, and the affirmations of medical experts on behalf of each of the defendants. The affirmation of Ian H. Newmark, M.D. is submitted on behalf of Dr. Alter; the affirmation of Richard W. Johnson, M.D. is submitted on behalf of SCSMC, and the affirmation of Howard Reiser, M.D. is submitted on behalf of Dr. Mayerson. Based upon a review of the submitted evidence, including the affirmations submitted on behalf of the respective defendants, the moving defendants have each demonstrated that there is no merit to plaintiffs’ claims against any of them. Accordingly, each of the moving defendants has established his/its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. As noted, plaintiffs do not oppose the instant summary judgment motions; rather, plaintiffs concede that “on the basis of the evidence developed during the discovery proceedings, plaintiff would be unable to establish liability” against Dr. Alter, Dr. Mayerson and SCSMC (Affirmations of Steven Siegel, Esq.,
