From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Mount Sinai Hosp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 30, 2021
197 A.D.3d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

14253 Index No. 805041/15 Case No. 2020–03736

09-30-2021

James E. MILLER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL et al., Defendants–Appellants, Emanuela Binello, M.D., Defendants.

McAloon & Friedman, P.C., New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for appellants. Osburn, Hine & Yates, L.L.C., Cape Girardeau, MO (Jeffrey P. Hine, of the bar of the State of Missouri, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.


McAloon & Friedman, P.C., New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for appellants.

Osburn, Hine & Yates, L.L.C., Cape Girardeau, MO (Jeffrey P. Hine, of the bar of the State of Missouri, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Oing, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered June 15, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Mount Sinai Hospital and Kalmon D. Post, M.D.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action for lack of informed consent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to rebut defendants’ prima facie showing as to his claim sounding in lack of informed consent (see Public Health Law § 2805–d ). Plaintiff's testimony and supporting affidavit, along with the testimony of his uncle who was privy to discussions with defendant Dr. Post prior to the recommended surgery, contradicted Dr. Post's assertion that he verbally apprised plaintiff of the "alternatives ... and ... reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved" in the surgery ( Public Health Law § 2805–d [1] ; see Santiago v. Filstein, 35 A.D.3d 184, 187, 826 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Corcino v. Filstein, 32 A.D.3d 201, 202, 820 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Andersen v. Delaney, 269 A.D.2d 193, 193, 703 N.Y.S.2d 714 [1st Dept. 2000] ). Moreover, the parties submitted conflicting medical experts’ opinions regarding the sufficiency of the informed consent (see Carnovali v. Sher, 121 A.D.3d 552, 552, 995 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Koffler v. Biller, 262 A.D.2d 150, 692 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 1999] ).


Summaries of

Miller v. Mount Sinai Hosp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 30, 2021
197 A.D.3d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Miller v. Mount Sinai Hosp.

Case Details

Full title:James E. MILLER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 30, 2021

Citations

197 A.D.3d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
153 N.Y.S.3d 471

Citing Cases

Snyder v. Goldstein

The plaintiffs, however, through their own submissions, including a transcript of the patient's deposition…

Morse v. Weill Cornell Med.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of Sun's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection…