From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stafford v. Molinoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 24, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In May 1986 the defendant Abraham Halfen performed abdominal surgery on the plaintiff and accidentally left a laparotomy pad in the plaintiff's abdomen. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against Halfen and others, claiming, in relevant part, that Halfen's actions constituted medical malpractice.

Halfen's expert disclosure statement revealed that he planned to call board-certified physicians as experts during trial. Nevertheless, during the trial, Halfen presented the expert testimony of a registered nurse with substantial operating-room experience. The nurse testified that operating-room nurses, and not surgeons, were responsible for making sure that no foreign objects remained in a patient's body at the end of surgery. The jury found, in relevant part, that Halfen was not responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. On December 8, 1994, the Supreme Court entered judgment on the jury verdict in Halfen's favor dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the nurse to testify as an expert on Halfen's behalf ( see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; Lesser v. Lacher, 203 A.D.2d 181; Marra v Hensonville Frozen Food Lockers, 189 A.D.2d 1004). The plaintiff cannot claim surprise or prejudice with regard to the content of the nurse's testimony. The record clearly reflects that the plaintiff anticipated that Halfen's defense would be that it was the operating-room nurses' responsibility to ensure that no foreign objects remained in the patient's body at the conclusion of surgery. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered any real surprise or prejudice as a result of Halfen's failure to disclose that one of his experts would be a nurse.

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Holt v. New York City Tr. Auth., 151 A.D.2d 460; Picciallo v. Norchi, 147 A.D.2d 540; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stafford v. Molinoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Stafford v. Molinoff

Case Details

Full title:MARSHA STAFFORD, Appellant, v. SEYMOUR J. MOLINOFF et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Jun 24, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 313

Citing Cases

Rhoden v. Saint Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital

The trial court properly excluded proof of defendant hospital's internal rules with regard to the handling of…

Lang v. Poughkeepsie Ob-Gyn

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and…