You are here: / Negligence
, ,

IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE.

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have limited discovery in this lead-paint exposure case to documents relating solely to the apartments where infant plaintiff resided or spent time. The condition of other portions of the buildings may be relevant to defendants’ notice of the condition of the paint:

​

The motion court should not have limited defendants’ production of records pertaining to lead-based paint exposure to the date of exposure and three years prior only in the subject apartments, namely, the apartment in which the infant plaintiff resided and the apartment, in a different building, where she attended day care. “While discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … .

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that defendants “knew, should have known, and/or had reason to know that there was deteriorated, defective, flaking, chipping and peeling paint in the Subject Premises [apartments] and the Subject Building,” which “could be harmful to children” … . Yet, despite this knowledge, the complaint alleges that defendants were negligent in performing repairs within the plaintiffs’ residence and the apartment where the infant plaintiff attended day care, and permitted the continued “emission, discharge[], spread and dissemination of lead based paint . . . thus causing the exposure of the infant plaintiff” to the hazardous conditions which were a contributing cause of her lead poisoning. Additionally, since plaintiffs had evidence from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which showed numerous lead paint violations in the subject buildings, and since evidence of lead paint hazards in one part of a building may be relevant to the issues of defendants’ notice of the condition, duties and obligations to the plaintiffs … , plaintiffs’ demand for production of records for lead-based paint violations in the other apartments in the buildings was appropriate … . “Knowledge of a dangerous condition in one portion of the structure may have imposed upon the owners an obligation to examine’ other portions of the structure for defects arising from the same cause, and to ascertain what was ascertainable with the exercise of reasonable care” … . The fact that plaintiffs may have been able to access some evidence of lead paint violations in the building from HPD does not preclude plaintiffs from seeking these records directly from defendants in discovery … .  Z.D. v MP Mgt., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04059, 1st Dept 5-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/TOXIC TORTS  (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/DISCOVERY  (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)/LEAD PAINT  (IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE)

,

MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur required the submission of this elevator-misleveling case to a jury. Plaintiff alleged she was injured removing a cart from the elevator:

​

The misleveling of an elevator does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, and the misleveling of the elevator in this case was caused by an instrumentality or agency within the defendants’ exclusive control and was not due to any voluntary action on plaintiff’s part. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to warrant submission of the case against the defendants to a jury on a theory of res ipsa loquitur … . Rojas v New York El. & Elec. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04043, 1st Dept 5-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (RES IPSA LOQUTUR, MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)/ELEVATORS (NEGLIGENCE, MISLEVELED ELEVATOR TRIGGERS RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE)

,

TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action stemming from the assault of plaintiff-tenant by an intruder. The intruder entered the building by “piggy-backing” on an entering tenant. There was evidence this particular intruder had entered the building the same way on other occasions when he had harassed and assaulted women:

Given the existence of an issue of fact as to foreseeability, an issue of fact also exists whether defendants discharged their common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect the tenants from the foreseeable harm… . In particular, in view of the previous incidents, issues of fact exist whether the security measures in place adequately protected female tenants from the risks posed and whether reasonable measures should have included, among others, warnings to tenants about the perpetrator, advising security staff of the perpetrator’s prior arrest in the complex, providing security staff and tenants with the perpetrator’s photograph, real-time monitoring of surveillance videos, or increasing the presence of lobby attendants, who were absent on the day of the assault. In other words, under the unique circumstances of this case, an issue is raised as to whether defendants, who had notice of this repeat intruder, took minimal security steps with respect to preventing his ability to easily access the interior of their buildings and attempt to sexually assault female tenants … .

Finally, an issue of fact exists whether any negligence on defendants’ part was a proximate cause of the assault … . The record shows that the perpetrator was able to gain entry into plaintiff’s building not as a guest but as an intruder; given defendants’ awareness of the practice of “piggy backing” in general and “piggy backing” by this perpetrator specifically, the tenant’s act of permitting the perpetrator to enter the building by “piggy backing” does not, as a matter of law, amount to a superseding intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between any deficient security and the assault on plaintiff … . Gonzalez v Riverbay Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04042, 1st Dept 5-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)/LANDLORD-TENANT (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE, TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS)

, ,

MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact had been raised whether defendant bar (Danu) served the driver of the car in which plaintiff was injured when the driver was visibly intoxicated (Dram Shop Act). The court noted that defendant’s motion to renew its motion for summary judgment to correct a defect in the initial motion papers (the deposition transcripts were unsigned) was proper:

​

“CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . Here, Danu’s failure to provide signed copies of the deposition transcripts with the original summary judgment motion was tantamount to law office failure, which constituted a reasonable justification… . Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Danu’s motion which was for leave to renew. * * *

​

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Danu’s bartenders, who were not presented for deposition, served alcohol to the driver while he was visibly intoxicated. Proof of a high blood alcohol content does not, in and of itself, “provide a sound basis for drawing inferences about a person’s appearance or demeanor” … . Nonetheless, “[p]roof of visible intoxication can be established by circumstantial evidence, including expert and eyewitness testimony”… .

The plaintiff submitted a transcript of the driver’s plea of guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated and related crimes, which established that the driver recalled drinking “a few” mixed drinks prior to the accident and that his blood alcohol content was over .18%. The plaintiff also relies on a police report indicating that, after the accident, the driver was “observed to be intoxicated and placed under arrest.” Although Danu now argues that the police report is inadmissible, it submitted the report with its reply papers on the original motion. Thus, Danu waived any objection to its admissibility, and on appeal the plaintiff may rely upon the report in opposition to Danu’s summary judgment motion … . Trigoso v Correa, 2017 NY Slip Op 03983, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED))/DRAM SHOP ACT (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted in this car-bus collision case. Plaintiff testified he had a green light. The bus driver (Puntarich) testified he had a green turn arrow. The jury found the bus driver negligent but his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Second Department noted that, because of the conflicting factual allegations, a motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law could not be granted:

“A jury finding that a party was negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause'” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, as the finding that Puntarich’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident did not rest upon a fair interpretation of the credible evidence … . However, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law was properly denied, as issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff also was at fault in causing the accident … .  Mancini v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03939, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff driver, determined that, although plaintiff had the right of way, he did not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this car-bus collision case. A driver with the right of way still has the obligation to see what is there to be seen and to take evasive action:

​

Although the operator of a motor vehicle traveling with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield … , the operator with the right-of-way also has an obligation to keep a proper lookout to see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles … . Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault … .

Here, Mark [plaintiff] failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion and cross motion, Mark submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which raised triable issues of fact as to whether Mark failed to see what was there to be seen and failed to take evasive actions to avoid the collision between his vehicle and the bus… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion and cross motion without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . Mark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03940, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS BUS-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED

,

MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s toxic tort (injury from mold) cause of action should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage on statute of limitations grounds. There was a question whether the symptoms plaintiff developed within three years of filing suit were qualitatively different from symptoms experienced more than three years before the suit:

The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for personal injury due to toxic mold. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that, after August 2010 (within three years of commencing this action), he suffered from “new” symptoms and injuries, including, among other things, eczema and significant fungal growth on his tongue and throat. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that this claim is time-barred … . While there are factual questions as to whether the sinus infections and related symptoms suffered prior to August 2010 were “qualitatively different” from plaintiff’s injuries after August 2010 … , at this procedural juncture it would be improper to dismiss the claim.  Gordon v ROL Realty Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03851, 1st Dept 5-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)

,

MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s toxic tort (injury from mold) cause of action should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage on statute of limitations grounds. There was a question whether the symptoms plaintiff developed within three years of filing suit were qualitatively different from symptoms experienced more than three years before the suit:

The motion court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for personal injury due to toxic mold. Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that, after August 2010 (within three years of commencing this action), he suffered from “new” symptoms and injuries, including, among other things, eczema and significant fungal growth on his tongue and throat. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that this claim is time-barred … . While there are factual questions as to whether the sinus infections and related symptoms suffered prior to August 2010 were “qualitatively different” from plaintiff’s injuries after August 2010 … , at this procedural juncture it would be improper to dismiss the claim.  Gordon v ROL Realty Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03851, 1st Dept 5-11-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT)

,

CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied to render this medical malpractice action timely. The court noted that the doctrine applies when the allegedly incorrect diagnosis occurred outside the statute of limitations and the continued treatment is not by the original doctor, but by other doctors in the group:

​

The continuous treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint … .  With respect to failure-to-diagnose cases, a physician “cannot escape liability under the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a failure to make a correct diagnosis as to the underlying condition, where [he or she] treated the patient continuously over the relevant time period for symptoms that are ultimately traced to that condition” … . The continuous treatment doctrine may be applied to a physician who has left a medical practice by imputing to him or her the continued treatment provided by subsequent treating physicians in that practice … . Matthews v Barrau, 2017 NY Slip Op 03738, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION EVEN WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION EVEN WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT TOLLS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION EVEN WHEN THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS DIAGNOSIS IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE AND THE CONTINUED TREATMENT WAS BY OTHER DOCTORS IN THE GROUP)

​

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant doctors’ motion for summary judgment in this orthopedic surgery medical malpractice action was properly granted. Plaintiff’s expert was a radiologist and did not demonstrate familiarity with the standard of care for orthopedic surgeons:

​

… [W]here, as here, ” a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered'” … . The plaintiff’s expert, a board-certified radiologist, did not indicate any familiarity with the standards of orthopedic care. Donnelly v Parikh, 2017 NY Slip Op 03731, 2nd pt 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

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