Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MEG BRAY AND BRIAN BRAY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SAURIN POPAT, M.D., DELAWARE MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, Saurin Popat, M.D. and Delaware Medical Group, P.C. (defendants) appeal from an order that denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the “Amended/Supplemental” complaint against them. We affirm.
Contrary to defendants’ contention, we conclude that, although they met their initial burden on their motion by establishing that they did not deviate from the accepted standard of care, plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact with respect to that element sufficient to defeat the motion (see generally Thompson v Hall, 191 AD3d 1265, 1267 [4th Dept 2021]). With respect to plaintiffs’ opposition papers, we initially reject defendants’ contention that plaintiffs’ expert was unqualified to render an opinion regarding the issues in this case. Plaintiffs’ anonymous expert averred in their expert affirmation that they are a physician, duly licensed to practice medicine, and that they are board certified by the American Board of Surgery with a clinical focus in endocrine surgery. The affirmation established that “[t]he specialized skills of [the] expert as demonstrated through [their] board certifications, taken together with the nature of the medical subject matter of th[e] action, are sufficient to support the inference that [their] opinion regarding [the] treatment [at issue] was reliable” (Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med., Inc., 177 AD3d 1256, 1258 [4th Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hilbrecht v Greco, 189 AD3d 2073, 2074 [4th Dept 2020]). Plaintiffs’ expert opined in their affirmation, inter alia, that Popat's assessment, diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff Meg Bray's condition fell below the accepted standard of care, thus presenting a “classic battle of the experts” that precludes summary judgment (Hilbrecht, 189 AD3d at 2074 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Entered: April 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 190
Decided: April 24, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)