MANEWAN v. Antonio Del Valle, M.D. et al., Defendants–Appellants, (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered October 7, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Antonio Del Valle, M.D., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's expert was qualified to render an opinion as to plaintiff's treatment by defendant Dr. Del Valle, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, who performed the biopsy of plaintiff's tongue.  The expert, a licensed physician board certified in anatomic pathology, specializing in cytopathology and oncologic surgical pathology, asserted familiarity with good and accepted medical practices pertaining to Dr. Del Valle's treatment of plaintiff, as well as with the relevant medical literature, and personally reviewed the biopsy slide at issue in this case (see Nguyen v. Dorce, 125 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2015] ).  Furthermore, because the negligence alleged here turns on the individual defendant's handling of the biopsy and subsequent pathology report, plaintiff's expert “possesses the requisite knowledge to make a determination on the issues presented” (Joswick v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 161 A.D.2d 352, 355 [1st Dept 1990] ).

Plaintiff's expert affirmation raised triable issues of fact sufficient to preclude summary dismissal of the complaint as against Dr. Del Valle.  In opposition to defendant's prima facie showing that he did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice, plaintiff's expert identified several departures that would have led to an earlier diagnosis of plaintiff's cancer that were neither speculative nor conclusory (see Diaz v. New York Downtown Hosp., 99 N.Y.2d 542, 544 [2002] ).  Specifically, the expert opined that defendant failed to communicate plaintiff's clinical presentation to the pathologist analyzing the biopsied tissue so that it could be considered in the pathology report.  The expert further opined that plaintiff's “clinic-pathological presentation,” including the finding of hyperkeratosis, indicated cells that were “in a transformative process to malignancy,” and defendant should have advised plaintiff accordingly and ordered a three-month follow-up biopsy or excised the lesion (cf.  Shekhtman v. Savransky, 154 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2017] ).

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing.