From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Apikoglu v. Leitman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2012
92 A.D.3d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-02-7

Hilda APIKOGLU, etc., appellant, v. Michael LEITMAN, etc., respondent, et al., defendant.

Michael F. Newton (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. *889 Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Martin B. Adams and Joseph R. Cammarosano of counsel), for respondent.


Michael F. Newton (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. *889 Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Martin B. Adams and Joseph R. Cammarosano of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered January 5, 2010, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Michael Leitman and against her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff's expert from testifying that the failure to perform CT-scans on the plaintiff's decedent between April 9, 2002, and April 11, 2002, as well as the failure to perform a third surgery, were departures from the accepted standard of care. The plaintiff failed to give notice prior to trial of the specific subject matter of the expert's testimony setting forth these different theories of recovery, which were not readily discernable from the plaintiff's bills of particulars and the statements in her CPLR 3101(d) responses ( see Ryan v. St. Francis Hosp., 62 A.D.3d 857, 878 N.Y.S.2d 786; Durant v. Shuren, 33 A.D.3d 843, 844, 827 N.Y.S.2d 65; Dalrymple v. Koka, 2 A.D.3d 769, 771, 771 N.Y.S.2d 127).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Apikoglu v. Leitman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2012
92 A.D.3d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Apikoglu v. Leitman

Case Details

Full title:Hilda APIKOGLU, etc., appellant, v. Michael LEITMAN, etc., respondent, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 7, 2012

Citations

92 A.D.3d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 919
937 N.Y.S.2d 888

Citing Cases

Owens v. Ascencio

CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) requires each party to "identify each person whom the party expects to call as an expert…