Weiss v. Zuckerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiss v. Zuckerman

114 A.D.2d 895, 495 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53924

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1985·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered March 9, 1984, which, upon the motion of defendant for judgment as a matter of law made at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by plaintiff, dismissed his complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

In order to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, expert testimony is required to establish proximate cause unless the causal relationship is readily apparent to the trier of fact (Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271). In this case, it is not readily apparent that the alleged damages were caused by the alleged malpractice of defendant. Since a jury may not be permitted to speculate as to the cause of an injury, expert opinion evidence was needed in order for plaintiff to establish a prima facie case (Hirsch v Safian, 257 App Div 212). As none was offered, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered March 9, 1984, which, upon the motion of defendant for judgment as a matter of law made at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by plaintiff, dismissed his complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

In order to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, expert testimony is required to establish proximate cause unless the causal relationship is readily apparent to the trier of fact (Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271). In this case, it is not readily apparent that the alleged damages were caused by the alleged malpractice of defendant. Since a jury may not be permitted to speculate as to the cause of an injury, expert opinion evidence was needed in order for plaintiff to establish a prima facie case (Hirsch v Safian, 257 App Div 212). As none was offered, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Weiss v. Zuckerman, 114 A.D.2d 895, 495 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

114 A.D.2d 895 (Weiss v. Zuckerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related