Opinion
No. 14–077.
2014-02-28
The posttrial dismissal of this small claims action accomplished “substantial justice” consistent with substantive law principles (CCA 1804, 1807), where plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence, expert or otherwise, in support of her central allegation that the defendant doctor improperly administered and/or interpreted her echocardiogram. The result is the same whether plaintiff's claim is deemed to sound in medical malpractice ( see Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999 [1985] ), breach of contract ( see Clarke v. Mikail, 238 A.D.2d 657 [1997] ) or lack of informed consent ( see Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 50 AD3d 464, 465 [2008] ). The burden remained with plaintiff to establish a prima facie case even though defendant appeared solely through counsel ( see22 NYCRR 208.41[h] ), a burden plaintiff failed to meet. The record discloses no errors in the conduct of the trial, and clearly none warranting reversal under the narrow review standard here applicable (CCA 1807; see Ellis v. Collegetown Plaza, 301 A.D.2d 758, 759 [2003] ). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.