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.
John C. Barone, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dello Russo Laser Vision Medical Care, PLLC, Defendant, Laser Eye Practice of New York, PLLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 24, 2015, which denied the motion of defendants Laser Eye Practice of New York, PLLC and Jeffrey Dello Russo, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
In this medical malpractice action stemming from Lasik eye surgery, Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo satisfied his burden on summary judgment by submitting evidence that he had no further involvement with plaintiff after having performed initial corneal topographies, the performance and analysis of which plaintiff concedes did not deviate from accepted medical practice (see Kristal R. v. Nichter, 115 AD3d 409, 411 [1st Dept 2014] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo had any involvement with the subsequent topography performed on plaintiff, rendering his expert's conclusion that Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo should have known plaintiff was a poor candidate for Lasik surgery as unsupported by the record (Feaster–Lewis v. Rotenberg, 93 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 803 [2012] ); see Bacani v. Rosenberg, 74 AD3d 500, 502 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010] ). In that no malpractice has been shown against Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo, there can be no vicarious liability to impute to defendant Laser Eye Practice of New York (see Lopez v. Master, 58 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2009] ).
_
CLERK
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: 1035
Decided: May 03, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)