Opinion
2014-12-24
Yosif TSIMBLER, appellant, v. Millie R. FELL, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
Garry Pogil, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Peter C. Kopff, LLC (Mauro Lilling Naparty, LLP, Woodbury, N.Y. [Gregory A. Cascino and Caryn L. Lilling], of counsel), for respondents.
Garry Pogil, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Peter C. Kopff, LLC (Mauro Lilling Naparty, LLP, Woodbury, N.Y. [Gregory A. Cascino and Caryn L. Lilling], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated April 9, 2014, which denied his motion for leave to renew his opposition to that branch of the motion of the defendants Millie R. Fell and Raymond Reich which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew her opposition to that branch of the motion of the defendants Millie R. Fell and Raymond Reich which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. “ ‘The retention of a new expert is not a legitimate basis for renewal’ ” (Loverde v. Gill, 108 A.D.3d 748, 748, 969 N.Y.S.2d 795, quoting Burgos v. Rateb, 64 A.D.3d 530, 531, 883 N.Y.S.2d 115). In any event, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the affirmation of his new expert would have changed the prior determination ( seeCPLR 2221 [e]; Loverde v. Gill, 108 A.D.3d at 748, 969 N.Y.S.2d 795; Matter of Cusimano v. Strianese Family Ltd. Partnership, 97 A.D.3d 744, 746, 949 N.Y.S.2d 94). MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and MALTESE, JJ., concur.