Opinion
8705 Index 103214/10
03-14-2019
Svetlana MARTIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Stephen SILVER, M.D., Defendant–Respondent.
Svetlana Martin, appellant pro se. DeCorato Cohen Sheehan & Federico LLP, New York (Amanda L. Tate of counsel), for respondent.
Svetlana Martin, appellant pro se.
DeCorato Cohen Sheehan & Federico LLP, New York (Amanda L. Tate of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Kahn, Oing, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered May 26, 2017, which granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered February 27, 2018 (CPLR 5220[c] ), and, so considered, said judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to adduce expert testimony establishing that the information disclosed to her about the risks inherent in the procedure was qualitatively inadequate or that defendant deviated or departed from any accepted standard of medical practice ( Gardner v. Wider, 32 A.D.3d 728, 730, 821 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept. 2006] [lack of informed consent]; Rivera v. Jothianandan, 100 A.D.3d 542, 954 N.Y.S.2d 94 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 861, 2013 WL 3215528 [2013] [medical malpractice] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments with respect to informed consent and medical malpractice and find them unavailing.
We lack jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's arguments as to the trial court's grant of defendant's motions in limine, preclusion of plaintiff's expert, or refusal to admit the out-of-state records of one of her doctors. Plaintiff's notice of appeal does not refer to or otherwise incorporate those determinations (see CPLR 5515[1] ; Frank v. City of New York, 161 A.D.3d 713, 713, 74 N.Y.S.3d 492 [1st Dept. 2018] ), and those determinations do not necessarily affect the final judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ; Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v. East 149th Realty Corp., 20 N.Y.3d 37, 42, 956 N.Y.S.2d 435, 980 N.E.2d 483 [2012] ).