From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bunting v. Selesnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 5, 2002
300 A.D.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2243

December 5, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J. and a jury), entered June 23, 2000, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a new trial.

John V. Decolator, for Plaintiff-appellant.

Nancy A. Breslow, for Defendant-respondent.

WILLIAMS, P.J., NARDELLI, ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN, LERNER, JJ.


At issue in this medical malpractice action is whether the trial court's refusal to allow plaintiff's medical expert to testify on the ground that a CPLR 3101(d) notice was error, and if so, whether such error was harmless. We find that the trial court erred in precluding plaintiff's medical expert from testifying as to causation and that such error was not harmless. The issues of defendant's alleged departure from accepted standards of surgical care and causation are so intertwined that expert testimony on both issues is required to be placed before the jury in the first instance so that they may make informed decisions when rendering their verdict.

Motion seeking leave to strike reply brief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Bunting v. Selesnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 5, 2002
300 A.D.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Bunting v. Selesnick

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS BUNTING, Plaintiff-appellant, v. SAMUEL H. SELESNICK, M.D.…

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

Date published: Dec 5, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 180

Citing Cases

Rocco v. Ahmed

Duvvuri also contends that the error in admitting the expert testimony was harmless since the jury found that…

Dalrymple v. Koka

The defendants contend that the error was harmless since the jury found that there was no departure from…