Nurik v. Ollstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nurik v. Ollstein

231 A.D.2d 458, 647 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9397

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 458 (Nurik v. Ollstein) 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

Nurik v. Ollstein, 231 A.D.2d 458, 647 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 26, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly considered the revised expert affidavit submitted by plaintiff after the return date of the motion upon the court’s own suggestion and with little resulting delay. In any event, the "reorganized” affidavit and report contained virtually the same findings and conclusions as the original. A doctor need not specifically couch his statement in terms of " 'a reasonable degree of medical certainty’ ” in order for it to "convey! ] equivalent assurance that it [is] not based on either supposition or speculation” (Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 463). On the merits, we agree with the motion court that issues of fact exist as to whether defendant should have made the incision lower on plaintiff’s abdomen and whether the failure to do so necessitated the corrective surgery that plaintiff underwent. For present purposes, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert to that effect should not be deemed unreliable for his having relied primarily on photographs of plaintiff taken after the initial and before the corrective surgery, rather than on any medical records. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 26, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly considered the revised expert affidavit submitted by plaintiff after the return date of the motion upon the court’s own suggestion and with little resulting delay. In any event, the "reorganized” affidavit and report contained virtually the same findings and conclusions as the original. A doctor need not specifically couch his statement in terms of " 'a reasonable degree of medical certainty’ ” in order for it to "convey! ] equivalent assurance that it [is] not based on either supposition or speculation” (Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 463). On the merits, we agree with the motion court that issues of fact exist as to whether defendant should have made the incision lower on plaintiff’s abdomen and whether the failure to do so necessitated the corrective surgery that plaintiff underwent. For present purposes, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert to that effect should not be deemed unreliable for his having relied primarily on photographs of plaintiff taken after the initial and before the corrective surgery, rather than on any medical records. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 458, 647 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nurik-v-ollstein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack