From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orr v. Meisel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order entered September 27, 1996, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered May 29, 1996, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Barry A. Meisel for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Meisel's motion was supported by, inter alia, expert medical evidence establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). Specifically, Meisel's expert offered his medical opinion that Meisel's conduct in performing a laparoscopic procedure to remove an ovarian cyst comported with good and accepted medical practice under the circumstances presented.

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs did not submit the medical affidavit of an expert, but rather relied principally on an attorney's affirmation. It is well settled that "[i]n medical malpractice actions expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit, except as to matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons" ( Moseberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942; Treinis v. Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 173 A.D.2d 605, 607). Further, and contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, none of the additional materials submitted in opposition to the motion, including the deposition testimony of a physician employed by the defendant Ethicon Endo-Surgery, raised material issues of fact with respect to the claim that the defendant Meisel's conduct proximately caused the injuries of the plaintiff Tanya M. Orr.

Lastly, the plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to their claim that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case ( see, Kasendorf v. Hempstead Gen. Hosp., 240 A.D.2d 370; cf., Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 N.Y.2d 489).

O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Orr v. Meisel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Orr v. Meisel

Case Details

Full title:TANYA M. ORR et al., Appellants, v. BARRY A. MEISEL, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 664

Citing Cases

Zak v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center

Although the registered nurse was qualified to establish that the allegedly negligent administration of…

Spicer v. Community Family Planning Council

The plaintiff did not, however, produce an affidavit of a medical expert demonstrating that the appellants…