From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Caruana

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Sep 27, 2019
175 A.D.3d 1807 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

809 CA 18–01632

09-27-2019

Reta WALKER, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Trent Walker, Deceased, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Joseph A. CARUANA, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Catholic Health System, doing business as Sisters Hospital of Buffalo, Defendant–Respondent.

PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (ANNE B. RIMMLER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. BARGNESI BRITT PLLC, BUFFALO (JASON T. BRITT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.


PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (ANNE B. RIMMLER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.

BARGNESI BRITT PLLC, BUFFALO (JASON T. BRITT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Catholic Health System, doing business as Sisters Hospital of Buffalo (Sisters), for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against it. We affirm.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, Sisters met its initial burden on the motion by submitting the affirmation of its expert physician, who addressed each of the specific factual allegations of negligence raised in the second amended complaint and bill of particulars (see Isensee v. Upstate Orthopedics, LLP , 174 A.D.3d 1520, 1521, 103 N.Y.S.3d 342 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Plaintiff's challenge to the qualifications of Sisters' expert is unpreserved inasmuch as she failed to object to the alleged deficiency before Supreme Court, and she may not raise that issue for the first time on appeal (see generally White v. Bajwa , 161 A.D.3d 1513, 1516, 75 N.Y.S.3d 749 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Matter of McKeown [Image Collision, Ltd.] , 94 A.D.3d 1445, 1447, 942 N.Y.S.2d 715 [4th Dept. 2012] ; Kibler v. Gillard Constr., Inc. , 53 A.D.3d 1040, 1042, 863 N.Y.S.2d 306 [4th Dept. 2008] ). Inasmuch as Sisters met its initial burden, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Groff v. Kaleida Health , 161 A.D.3d 1518, 1520, 76 N.Y.S.3d 714 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Chillis v. Brundin , 150 A.D.3d 1649, 1650, 54 N.Y.S.3d 479 [4th Dept. 2017] ).

We conclude that plaintiff's expert failed to refute the conclusions of Sisters' expert with respect to plaintiff's claims. Rather, plaintiff's opposition contained new theories of liability that were not included in the second amended complaint or bill of particulars and thus could not be used to defeat Sisters' motion (see DeMartino v. Kronhaus , 158 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 71 N.Y.S.3d 277 [4th Dept. 2018] ; see also Iodice v. Giordano , 170 A.D.3d 971, 972, 96 N.Y.S.3d 360 [2d Dept. 2019] ; Stewart v. Dunkleman , 128 A.D.3d 1338, 1341, 8 N.Y.S.3d 515 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 902, 2015 WL 5125616 [2015] ). Therefore, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and the court properly granted Sisters' motion (see Chillis , 150 A.D.3d at 1651, 54 N.Y.S.3d 479 ).

In light of our determination, plaintiff's remaining contentions are academic.


Summaries of

Walker v. Caruana

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Sep 27, 2019
175 A.D.3d 1807 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Walker v. Caruana

Case Details

Full title:RETA WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TRENT…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Sep 27, 2019

Citations

175 A.D.3d 1807 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
109 N.Y.S.3d 799
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6908

Citing Cases

Jeannette S. v. Williot

Thus, the affidavits submitted by Kaleida Health and plaintiff presented a "classic battle of the experts"…

Thomas v. Eckhert

Initially, we note that defendants' contention on appeal that plaintiff improperly raised a new theory of…