Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry

25 Misc. 3d 51
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided September 11, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders, entered April 24, 2008, and June 17, 2008, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.

Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to renew based upon the affirmation of plaintiffs attorney explaining why his medical expert’s affirmation was unsigned and redacted (see Mattis v Keen, Zhao, 54 AD3d 610 [2008]) and correcting the procedural error pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Cespedes v McNamee, 308 AD2d 409 [2003]; Puntino v Chin, 288 AD2d 202 [2001]). On renewal, the court correctly determined that factual issues were presented by the conflicting opinions offered by the parties’ medical experts as to whether defendant departed from the prevailing standard of care and, if so, whether such departure proximately caused plaintiffs injuries (see Prigorac v Park, 20 AD3d 363 [2005]).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry, 25 Misc. 3d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

25 Misc. 3d 51 (Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Poivan-Traub v. Chaglassian
2020 NY Slip Op 06072 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)