Opinion
10801 & M-8477, M-8480 Index 800008/14
01-16-2020
Kalman KASPIEV, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Irina PANKOVA, M.D., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Kalman Kaspiev, appellant pro se. Matturro & Associates, Westbury (Joseph Brenner of counsel), for respondents.
Kalman Kaspiev, appellant pro se.
Matturro & Associates, Westbury (Joseph Brenner of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Plaintiff contends that he suffered corneal edema, which required cornea transplant surgery, and loss of vision in his right eye as a result of an Ex–Press glaucoma shunt surgery performed by defendants. On appeal, plaintiff fails to provide any basis for disturbing the motion court's dismissal of his malpractice and informed consent claims. Rather, plaintiff merely reiterates that defendants are responsible for his corneal edema and vision loss.
Plaintiff's allegation that Dr. Pankova fraudulently held herself out as holding a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree is contradicted by the record, which demonstrates that Dr. Pankova received an M.D. from a foreign medical school and is licensed to practice medicine in New York under a domestically awarded Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) degree (see Matter of Lobacz v. Sobol , 171 A.D.2d 174, 177, 574 N.Y.S.2d 840 [3d Dept. 1991], citing Matter of New York State Osteopathic Socy. v. Allen , 26 N.Y.2d 20, 25, 308 N.Y.S.2d 342, 256 N.E.2d 510 [1970] ). In any event, such an allegation of professional misconduct does not give rise to a private right of action ( Requa v. Coopers & Lybrand , 303 A.D.2d 159, 756 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
M–8477 – Motion, in effect, to compel an admission from defendant Irina Pankova, M.D. denied.
M–8480 – Motion to adjourn appeal denied.