You are here: / / HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101...
, , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although plaintiff was precluded from offering expert evidence and therefore could not prove medical malpractice, the negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged scarring and burns caused by laser hair removal:

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the negligence cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case in the absence of the testimony of an expert witness. At trial, the plaintiff may, through the testimony of his treating physician, records, or “other evidence,” be able to establish “the standard of care in performing laser hair removal and the known risks of the procedure” … . Therefore, contrary to the court’s determination, although the plaintiff is precluded from offering the testimony of an expert witness whose identity must be disclosed pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), at this juncture, it cannot be determined that the plaintiff will be unable to establish a prima facie case of negligence … . Mishli v Advanced Dermatology Laser & Cosmetic Surgery, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04386, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: In this case alleging scarring and burning during laser hair removal, the dismissal of a medical malpractice cause of action because the identity of an expert witness has not been disclosed did not necessarily preclude a negligence cause of action proven by the testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician.

 

You might also like
BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AFTER A SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ASSIGNED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO SUE DEFENDANT’S INSURER ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, THE INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Company Which Contracted with County to Maintain Traffic Signals Did Not Owe a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged a Malfunctioning Traffic Signal Caused an Accident in Which She Was Injured
THE ESTATE OF THE MORTGAGOR WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED BEFORE HER DEATH AND THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT SEEK A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity
Slip and Fall on a Sloped, Grassy Area Not Actionable

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

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT CORPORATION ON FILE WITH THE... THE MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS AGAINST EMERGENCY-ROOM PHYSICIANS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF’S...