J.A.D. v. Arevalo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J.A.D. v. Arevalo

2017 NY Slip Op 3269, 149 A.D.3d 664, 50 N.Y.S.3d 878

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 27, 2017

Docket3856

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3269 (J.A.D. v. Arevalo) 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

J.A.D. v. Arevalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 3269, 149 A.D.3d 664, 50 N.Y.S.3d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 3, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Ronald Paul Arevalo, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record, which includes conflicting expert affidavits, presents triable issues as to whether defendant Arevalo deviated from good and accepted medical practice, and whether such alleged deviation proximately caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries (see generally Dallas-Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 306-307 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff’s expert neonatologist sufficiently raised questions as to whether Arevalo failed to *665 timely diagnose the infant plaintiff’s abdominal condition and obtain a surgical consult (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]; Cregan v Sachs, 65 AD3d 101, 108-109 [1st Dept 2009]). Although surgery on the infant plaintiff did not occur for 36 hours following the infant’s transfer to another facility, this does not warrant a different determination (see Bradley v Soundview Healthcenter, 4 AD3d 194 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 3, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Ronald Paul Arevalo, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record, which includes conflicting expert affidavits, presents triable issues as to whether defendant Arevalo deviated from good and accepted medical practice, and whether such alleged deviation proximately caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries (see generally Dallas-Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 306-307 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff’s expert neonatologist sufficiently raised questions as to whether Arevalo failed to *665 timely diagnose the infant plaintiff’s abdominal condition and obtain a surgical consult (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]; Cregan v Sachs, 65 AD3d 101, 108-109 [1st Dept 2009]). Although surgery on the infant plaintiff did not occur for 36 hours following the infant’s transfer to another facility, this does not warrant a different determination (see Bradley v Soundview Healthcenter, 4 AD3d 194 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3269, 149 A.D.3d 664, 50 N.Y.S.3d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jad-v-arevalo-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack