Opinion
November 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants. The affidavits of the treating physician and the expert, setting forth the procedures followed in the examination of plaintiff and stating that the examination was conducted in accordance with accepted standards of medical care, are sufficient to establish defendants' entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324-325; Wert v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 151 A.D.2d 474, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 613; Wind v Cacho, 111 A.D.2d 808). In opposition to defendants' motions, plaintiff failed to tender competent medical proof sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra, at 327; Olivero v Kropelin, 186 A.D.2d 1086, 1087). We reject the assertion of plaintiff that expert medical opinion was not necessary because of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The negligence alleged by plaintiff encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of lay persons. Plaintiff, therefore, may "not proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without first submitting expert medical opinion regarding the level of medical care required" (Quigley v Jabbur, 124 A.D.2d 398, 400; see also, Pipers v. Rosenow, 39 A.D.2d 240).