Campbell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
This text of Campbell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Campbell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.) 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
Court Decisions Resources About
Campbell v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
2026 NY Slip Op 02445
April 23, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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.
Janice Campbell, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026
Index No. 26902/20|Appeal No. 6467|Case No. 2024-06323|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.
The Law Office of Michael J. Noonan, P.C., Bronx (Michael J. Noonan of counsel), for appellant.
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Alex Fumelli of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alicia Gerez, J.), entered September 10, 2024, which granted defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint reinstated.
In this medical malpractice action, defendant's surgeons inadvertently lacerated plaintiff's bladder during pelvic surgery. In opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion, plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit in which the expert opined that the surgeons deviated from the standard of care by not performing a retrograde bladder fill prior to separating the uterus from the adhesions that connected it to the bladder. The expert further averred that this technique would have expanded the bladder and made its margins more visible during the dissection. This claim, supported by medical records documenting the presence of significant adhesions throughout plaintiff's pelvis, creates an issue of fact warranting a trial (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]; Cregan v Sachs, 65 AD3d 101, 108-109 [1st Dept 2009]). Contrary to defendant's argument, that claim was encompassed by plaintiff's bill of particulars, which alleged improper surgical technique (see DB v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 162 AD3d 478, 478-479 [1st Dept 2018]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 23, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI