You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT SPECULATIVE OR CONCLUSORY;...
, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT SPECULATIVE OR CONCLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this dental malpractice and lack of informed consent should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavits raised questions of fact:

“In order not to be considered speculative or conclusory, expert opinions in opposition should address specific assertions made by the movant’s experts, setting forth an explanation of the reasoning and relying on specifically cited evidence in the record” … . In determining a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … , and “all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party” … . * * *

Summary judgment is not appropriate in a dental malpractice action where, as here, the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions, since conflicting expert opinions raise credibility issues which are to be resolved by the factfinder … . …

“[L]ack of informed consent is a distinct cause of action requiring proof of facts not contemplated by an action based merely on allegations of negligence” … . “To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . Many v Lossef, 2021 NY Slip Op 00165, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

You might also like
CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
A DANGEROUS CONDITION, A DOOR WHICH SWUNG CLOSED ABRUPTLY, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF; TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DOOR, THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT EVIDENCE THE DOOR WAS INSPECTED OR MAINTAINED AND FOUND SAFE CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INJURY; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT SUCH EVIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
A JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).
Extent of Court Review of Town Board’s Assessment of an Environmental Impact Statement Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Explained
PETITIONERS, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE BOARD’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

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

THE SNOWPLOW DRIVER DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD... THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION DIRECTING THE COLLECTION OF MORE EVIDENCE IS THE...