From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lambos v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1998
256 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 16, 1998

Appeal from the an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the appellant's motion in its entirety, and substituting therefor a provision granting the appellant's motion to the extent that the concessions made by the plaintiffs' medical expert in his affidavit in opposition to the appellant's motion that the appellant "properly and timely diagnosed the [decedent's] condition as being a seizure disorder, that appropriate diagnostic tests were performed to support that diagnosis, and that the appropriate and timely treatment was initially instituted" are deemed facts established for all purposes in the action, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the affidavit of the plaintiffs' medical expert raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant's alleged malpractice was a proximate cause of the decedent's injuries and subsequent death ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]. It cannot be said that the alleged malpractice of the codefendant Montefiore Medical Center constituted a superseding act which broke the causal connection between the appellant's alleged malpractice and the decedent's injuries and ultimate death ( see, Lynch v. Bay Ridge Obstetrical Gynecological Assocs., 72 N.Y.2d 632, 636; Jackson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 605, 606).

However, to the extent that the plaintiffs' medical expert, in his affidavit in opposition to the appellant's motion for summary judgment, conceded that the appellant "properly and timely diagnosed the [decedent's] condition as being a seizure disorder, that appropriate diagnostic tests were performed to support that diagnosis, and that the appropriate and timely treatment was initially instituted", it is ordered that such facts are deemed established for all purposes in the action ( see, CPLR 3212 [g]).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lambos v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1998
256 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Lambos v. Weintraub

Case Details

Full title:VASILIOS LAMBOS, as Administrator of the Estate of RODOCLIA LAMBOS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 16, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 83

Citing Cases

Romanelli v. Jones

"It is only where the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal…

Moran v. Mu

As Professor Siegel notes (in § 286 of NY Prac at 487 [5th ed 2011]), "CPLR 3212 (g) appears to be little…