Rarely some patients will report some difficulty swallowing permanently," sufficiently alerting Zeoli to the exact complication alleged to have occurred here. Plaintiffs' claim that the doctor minimized the risk and failed to advise that CPAP was a no risk alternative, is a feigned issue of fact, contradicted by the medical records, which list multiple conversations concerning plaintiff's prior attempts to use a CPAP machine, attempts that failed due to plaintiff's reported claustrophobia and discomfort ( seeBamberg–Taylor v. Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401, 142 N.Y.S.3d 537 [1st Dept. 2021] ).

Rarely some patients will report some difficulty swallowing permanently," sufficiently alerting Zeoli to the exact complication alleged to have occurred here. Plaintiffs' claim that the doctor minimized the risk and failed to advise that CPAP was a no risk alternative, is a feigned issue of fact, contradicted by the medical records, which list multiple conversations concerning plaintiff's prior attempts to use a CPAP machine, attempts that failed due to plaintiff's reported claustrophobia and discomfort (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401 [1st Dept 2021]).

Nonetheless, a defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a claim where a patient signs a detailed consent form, and there is also evidence that the necessity and benefits of the procedure, along with known risks and dangers, were discussed prior to the procedure (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401, 401-402 [1st Dept 2021]).

"The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law'" (Huichun Feng v Accord Physicians, 194 A.D.3d 795, 797 [2d Dept 2021], quoting Schussheim v Barazani, 136 A.D.3d 787, 789 [2d Dept 2016]; see Godel v Goldstein, 155 A.D.3d 939, 942 [2d Dept 2017]). Nonetheless, a defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a claim where a patient signs a detailed consent form, and there is also evidence that the necessity and benefits of the procedure, along with known risks and dangers, were discussed prior to the procedure (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401,401-402 [1st Dept 2021]).

Nonetheless, a defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a claim where a patient signs a detailed consent form, and there is also evidence that the necessity and benefits of the procedure, along with known risks and dangers, were discussed prior to the procedure (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401,401-402 [1st Dept 2021]). "A failure to diagnose cannot be the basis of a cause of action for lack of informed consent unless associated with a diagnostic procedure that 'involve[s] invasion or disruption of the integrity of the body'" (Janeczko v Russell, 46 A.D.3d 324, 325 [1st Dept 2007], quoting Public Health Law § 2805-d[2][b]; see Lewis v Rutkovsky, 153 A.D.3d at 456).

Further, a Defendant moving for summary judgment on a lack of informed consent claim must demonstrate that the Plaintiff was informed of the alternatives and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits of the treatment (see Koi Hou Chan v Yeung, 66 A.D.3d 642, 643 [2d Dept 2009]). A Defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a cause of action where a patient signs a consent form indicating his or her understanding of the possible risks of the procedure along with corroborating medical records (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401,401-402 [1st Dept 2021]).

As to Plaintiff's claim for lack of informed consent, a Defendant moving for summary judgment on a lack of informed consent claim must demonstrate that the plaintiff was informed of the alternatives to and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits of the treatment (see Koi Hou Chanv Yeung, 66 A.D.3d 642, 643 [2d Dept 2009]). A Defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a cause of action where a patient signs a consent form indicating his or her understanding of the possible risks of the procedure along with corroborating medical records (see Bamberg-Taylorv Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401, 401-402 [1st Dept 2021]).

Koi Hou Chanv.Yeung, 66 A.D.3d 642, 643 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Smithv.Cattani, 2 A.D.3d 259, 260 [1st Dept 2003] [holding that a defendant is entitled to summary judgment where "documentary evidence establishes that before each of plaintiff s seven surgeries, defendant notified him of the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits of the surgery, as well as alternatives to the proposed treatment]; Johnsonv.Staten Is. Med. Group, 82 A.D.3d 708, 709 [2d Dept 2011] [holding that where the plaintiff signed an informed consent form, the form itself was sufficient to carry the defendants' prima facie burden on summary judgment]). A defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a cause of action where a patient signs a consent form indicating his or her understanding of the possible risks of the procedure along with corroborating medical records (see Bamberg-Taylorv Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401, 401-402 [1st Dept 2021]). Through the submission of Dr. Hershberger's expert affirmation, the Court finds that the Defendant, Dr. Hertz, established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with the Plaintiff's claims sounding in lack of informed consent.

Nonetheless, a defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a claim where a patient signs a detailed consent form, and there is also evidence that the necessity and benefits of the procedure, along with known risks and dangers, were discussed prior to the procedure (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401, 401-402 [1st Dept 2021]).

Nonetheless, a defendant may satisfy his or her burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with such a claim where a patient signs a detailed consent form, and there is also evidence that the necessity and benefits of the procedure, along with known risks and dangers, were discussed prior to the procedure (see Bamberg-Taylor v Strauch, 192 A.D.3d 401,401-402 [1st Dept 2021]). "A failure to diagnose cannot be the basis of a cause of action for lack of informed consent unless associated with a diagnostic procedure that 'involve[s] invasion or disruption of the integrity of the body'" (Janeczko v Russell, 46 A.D.3d 324, 325 [1st Dept 2007], quoting Public Health Law § 2805-d[2][b]; see Lewis v Rutkovsky, 153 A.D.3d at 456).