Balgobin v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr.
This text of Balgobin v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. (Balgobin v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Balgobin v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr.
2026 NY Slip Op 03938
June 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Bojdhat Balgobin, appellant,
v
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 24, 2026
2022-03052, 2022-03053, (Index No. 718089/18)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Helen Voutsinas
Lourdes M. Ventura
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Godosky & Gentile, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Paul H. Seidenstock], of counsel), for appellant.
Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP (Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York, NY [Deirdre E. Tracey], of counsel), for respondent Jamaica Hospital Medical Center.
Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, New York, NY (Barbara D. Goldberg and Karen B. Corbett of counsel), for respondent Jamaica Nursing Home Company, Inc.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Peter J. O'Donoghue, J.), both dated March 31, 2022. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Company, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice and a violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d insofar as asserted against it. The second order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the first order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and those branches of the motion of the defendant Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Company, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice and a violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d insofar as asserted against it are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the second order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter the hospital) and Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Company, Inc. (hereinafter the [*2]nursing home), inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and a violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants were negligent in their failure to properly prevent and treat his pressure ulcer during the times when he was a patient at their facilities. The nursing home moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice and a violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d insofar as asserted against it. The hospital moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it. In an order dated March 31, 2022, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of the nursing home's motion. In another order dated March 31, 2022, the court, among other things, granted that branch of the hospital's motion. The plaintiff appeals.
"In moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that there was no departure or deviation from the accepted standard of care or that such departure or deviation was not a proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff" (Paxton v Sosnowski, 238 AD3d 779, 781 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rodriguez v Avshalumov, 238 AD3d 1082, 1083). "If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff, in opposition, must demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the elements on which the defendant has met his or her initial burden" (Deane v Tracer, 237 AD3d 1156, 1158 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Campbell v Ditmas Park Rehabilitation & Care Ctr., LLC, 225 AD3d 835, 836). "Generally, summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions" (Deane v Tracer, 237 AD3d at 1158 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rodriguez v Avshalumov, 238 AD3d at 1083).
Here, the hospital established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it through the affirmation of its expert physician. The physician opined, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the hospital did not deviate or depart from the accepted standard of care with respect to the prevention and treatment of the plaintiff's pressure ulcer, and that the plaintiff's pressure ulcer was unavoidable due to his medical condition and comorbidities (see Russell v River Manor Corp., 216 AD3d 827, 830; Cummings v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 147 AD3d 902, 903).
In opposition, however, the plaintiff's expert affidavit raised triable issues of fact as to whether the hospital departed from the accepted standard of care, and whether the alleged departures were a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The physician opined, inter alia, that the hospital departed from the accepted standard of care by elevating the head of the plaintiff's bed as part of its pressure injury prevention plan, and that this departure contributed to the development of the plaintiff's pressure injury at the hospital. Moreover, the plaintiff's expert rebutted the opinion of the hospital's expert that the plaintiff's pressure ulcer was unavoidable (cf. Campbell v Ditmas Park Rehabilitation & Care Ctr., LLC, 225 AD3d at 837). Contrary to the hospital's contentions, the opinion of the plaintiff's expert was supported by the record and therefore was not speculative or conclusory (see Darrisaw v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 238 AD3d 1111, 1113). Further, since the plaintiff's expert offered an opinion within his area of specialization, "the expert was not required to provide official medical guidelines or other foundational evidence to support the reliability of the opinion rendered" (Mehtvin v Ravi
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Balgobin v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balgobin-v-jamaica-hosp-med-ctr-nyappdiv-2026.