You are here: / / NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION...
, ,

NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff raised a new theory in response to the summary judgment motion. The First Department held that the new theory could not be entertained by searching the record and therefore could not support the denial of summary judgment or an amended bill of particulars:

​

Once the defendants met their burden for summary judgment, plaintiff was obligated to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing with medical evidence demonstrating that the defendants departed from accepted medical practice … . Here, plaintiff failed to address the opinions of defendants’ experts or defendants’ prima facie showing that the result from the complicated, extensive double jaw surgery was anything but a reasonable result. Thus, there was no basis to preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants … . Instead, plaintiff proffered a new theory, based on the report of an expert otolaryngologist, who opined that Dr. Behrman had failed to take into account plaintiff’s primary immune deficiency in planning the surgery, that he should have initially consulted with an immunologist who would have performed testing before surgery, and that he failed to refer plaintiff after surgery to an ENT doctor, who would have consulted with an immunologist. Plaintiff’s expert asserted that these failures led to the development of an infection, which caused plaintiff’s hearing loss, numbness, and teeth misalignment.

It is axiomatic that a plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion that made out a prima facie case by merely asserting, without more, a new theory of liability for the first time in the opposition papers … . Since plaintiff’s opposition papers were insufficient absent this new theory of recovery, defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been granted … . Biondi v Behrman, 2017 NY Slip Op 03039, 1st Dept 4-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT PRESENT A NEW THEORY OF NEGLIGENCE; THE MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Request Court-Permission to Re-Present Charges to a Grand Jury Is Reversible Error Which Survives a Guilty Plea
RE: DETERMINING THE CORRECT JURISDICTION FOR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PURPOSES, THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING PURELY ECONOMIC INJURY IS USUALLY IN THE “PLACE OF INJURY,” WHICH IS USUALLY WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENDANT LACKED STANDING, OTHER GROUNDS FOR SUPPRESSION NOT RAISED BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST HIM (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO CROSS-EXAMINE A DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSTALLING CONDENSERS WAS ‘ALTERATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO REAR-END COLLISION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RECORDED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH INSURER PROTECTED AS A STATEMENT PREPARED FOR... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY...