Opinion
10864 Index 805213/15
01-23-2020
Henryk LAMPKOWSKI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Raul PARRA, M.D., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Marzec Law Firm, PC, Brooklyn (Jerome Noll of counsel), for appellant. Dopf, P.C., New York (Martin B. Adams of counsel), for respondents.
Marzec Law Firm, PC, Brooklyn (Jerome Noll of counsel), for appellant.
Dopf, P.C., New York (Martin B. Adams of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered February 15, 2018, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPLR 4404[a] ), and the evidence supports the jury's findings that defendant Dr. Parra did not depart from the applicable standard of care or fail to obtain informed consent from plaintiff in providing treatment for his prostate cancer. The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding plaintiff's expert from testifying about which treatment option should have been "recommended" to plaintiff, as this is not a proper basis for either a lack of informed consent claim (see Public Health Law § 2805–d ), or a medical malpractice claim. Further, an expert's testimony that one treatment option is preferable does not establish that a doctor deviated from the standard of care in following a different medically accepted treatment (see A.C. v. Sylvestre, 144 A.D.3d 417, 418, 40 N.Y.S.3d 389 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Accordingly, we find no basis for setting aside the jury's verdict, which is accorded deference (see Cordero v. Yeung, 143 A.D.3d 472, 473, 38 N.Y.S.3d 427 [1st Dept. 2016] ; see also Angel R. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 139 A.D.3d 590, 33 N.Y.S.3d 16 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 909, 2016 WL 6840170 [2016] ).