From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ashton v. D.O.C.S. Continuum Med. Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 2009
68 A.D.3d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Summary

In Ashton, the court directed the plaintiff's expert to submit a supplemental affirmation elaborating solely on his initial conclusions.

Summary of this case from Ostrov v. Rozbruch

Opinion

No. 1870.

December 22, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 30, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this medical malpractice action, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman Dicker LLP, New York (Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for appellants.

Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff Wolff, LLP, New York (Sharon Elmaleh-Schoenman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


The court properly exercised its discretion in directing plaintiff to submit a supplemental expert affirmation stating the basis for the expert's opinion, where defendants were permitted to respond and were not otherwise prejudiced ( see Orsini v Postel, 267 AD2d 18).

The expert medical affirmation submitted by plaintiff, relying on plaintiff's medical records from early 2005 demonstrating the absence of any reference to a cough or a bulge in plaintiff's chest, was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's disease had progressed to the "bulky" stage during the relevant time period and whether his course of treatment would have been different had the disease been diagnosed earlier. Furthermore, the opinion of plaintiff's expert was not merely conclusory, as it relied on plaintiff's medical records to draw conclusions ( see Boston v Weissbart, 62 AD3d 517; compare Parnell v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 63 AD3d 573, 574).

Contrary to defendants' contention, since the opinion of plaintiff's expert did not concern a novel scientific theory of causation, a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States ( 293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]), was unnecessary ( see e.g. Marsh v Smyth, 12 AD3d 307).

[Prior Case History: 23 Misc 3d 1138 (A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51184(U).]


Summaries of

Ashton v. D.O.C.S. Continuum Med. Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 2009
68 A.D.3d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

In Ashton, the court directed the plaintiff's expert to submit a supplemental affirmation elaborating solely on his initial conclusions.

Summary of this case from Ostrov v. Rozbruch

In Ashton, the First Department approved of supplemental affirmations regarding an issue previously raised, limiting the supplement to that issue, and providing the opposition a chance to respond.

Summary of this case from Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys.
Case details for

Ashton v. D.O.C.S. Continuum Med. Group

Case Details

Full title:RANDALL ASHTON, Respondent, v. D.O.C.S. CONTINUUM MEDICAL GROUP et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 22, 2009

Citations

68 A.D.3d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9522
891 N.Y.S.2d 69

Citing Cases

Abraham v. 257 Cent. Park W., Inc.

Ostrov v. Rozbruch, 91 A.D.3d 147, 153-44 (1st Dep't 2012). See Colon v. Torres, 106 A.D.3d 458, 458 (1st…

Ostrov v. Rozbruch

It appears that our holdings in Orsini v. Postel, 267 A.D.2d 18, 698 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1999], Ashton v. D.O.C.S.…