Fleming v. Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc.

70 A.D.3d 422, 893 N.Y.S.2d 551
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 422 (Fleming v. Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook
Fleming v. Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 422, 893 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered December 2, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for wrongful death and so much of the cause of action for personal injuries as seeks to recover damages for pain and suffering experienced after November 4, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing entitling them to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for wrongful death based on plaintiffs decedent’s medical records, the deposition testimony of the decedent’s treating physician, and the affirmation of a vascular surgeon (see Browder v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 37 AD3d 375 [2007]). In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While plaintiffs expert sufficiently demonstrated his expertise to render an opinion (see Ocasio-Gary v Lawrence Hosp., 69 AD3d 403, 404-405 [1st Dept, Jan. 5, 2010]), his affirmation did not address the deposition testimony of the decedent’s treating physician and the affirmation of defendant’s expert regarding the decedent’s underlying medical conditions, and his opinion as to proximate cause was conclusory and contradicted by the record (see Browder, supra).

Since the decedent had stopped using defendants’ allegedly harmful medicinal creams prior to November 4, 2004, by which time his initial skin wounds had healed, the claim for pain and suffering was properly limited to the period beginning with the decedent’s first use of the creams and ending November 4, 2004.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Related

Tapia v. Patel
2025 NY Slip Op 31654(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Viera v. Khasdan
2020 NY Slip Op 3717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
S. P. v. St. Barnabas Hosp.
2020 NY Slip Op 1283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Fall v. Guseynov
126 A.D.3d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Dasent v. Schechter
95 A.D.3d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.3d 422, 893 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-pedinol-pharmacal-inc-nyappdiv-2010.