SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
January 5, 2010
BRIDGET WIGAND, APPELLANT,
SAUL MODLIN, ETC., RESPONDENT.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated October 27, 2008, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
(Index No. 827/07)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice (see Public Health Law § 2805-d; Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324-325; Feinberg v Feit, 23 AD3d 517, 518-519), the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he deviated from the relevant standard of care (see Flanagan v Catskill Regional Med. Ctr., 65 AD3d 563, 565-567; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420, 420-421). Similarly, in response to the plaintiff's establishment of her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the risks at issue were foreseeable and, therefore, should have been communicated to the plaintiff prior to the procedure (see Public Health Law § 2805-d; Spano v Bertocci, 299 AD2d 335, 337-338; Bernard v Block, 176 AD2d 843). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see Feinberg v Feit, 23 AD3d at 519; Shields v Baktidy, 11 AD3d 671, 672).
RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.