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.
Sean RYAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Simpson Metal, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 18, 1998, which dismissed the action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint reinstated. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 24, 1998, which denied reargument and adhered to its earlier decision, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument.
Although plaintiff had complied with 22 NYCRR 202.17 by providing authorizations as well as all the records and reports of the two physicians, plaintiff did not serve a CPLR 3101(d) response as to either doctor. Defendants, although conceding that the doctors could testify regarding their examinations and treatment of plaintiff, took the position that they were precluded from offering their expert opinions on the issue of proximate cause. The IAS court agreed. Moreover, based upon the prospect that plaintiff could not relate his injuries to the accident without expert testimony as to causation, it dismissed the action.
This was an improvident exercise of the court's discretion. When the plaintiff's intended expert witness is a treating physician whose records and reports have already been fully disclosed pursuant to CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17, the failure to serve a CPLR 3101(d) notice regarding that physician does not justify a preclusion of that expert's testimony on the issue of causation, since the defendant has sufficient notice of the proposed testimony, and neither surprise nor prejudice would result (see, McGee v. Family Care Serv., 246 A.D.2d 308, 666 N.Y.S.2d 415; see also, Cutsogeorge v. The Hertz Corp., 264 A.D.2d 752, 695 N.Y.S.2d 375, 377; Mantuano v. Mehale, 258 A.D.2d 566, 567, 685 N.Y.S.2d 467; Overeem v. Neuhoff, 254 A.D.2d 398, 400, 679 N.Y.S.2d 74; Freeman v. Kirkland, 184 A.D.2d 331, 584 N.Y.S.2d 828). To the extent that defendants have been prejudiced by lack of information as to the physicians' credentials, that issue can be easily resolved by Supreme Court prior to trial.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 08, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)