Carmona v. Mathisson
| Citation | 938 N.Y.S.2d 300,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01105,92 A.D.3d 492 |
| Parties | Juanita CARMONA, Plaintiff–Appellant,George Carmona, Plaintiff, v. Kevin Ross MATHISSON, M.D., et al., Defendants–Respondents,Maple Eye Associates LLP, et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 14 February 2012 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm, LLP, New York (James M. Lane of counsel), for appellant.
Bartlett, McDonough & Monahan, White Plains (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), entered September 4, 2009, which denied plaintiff's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and a trial on damages, or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the verdict set aside, and the matter remanded for a new trial consistent with this decision.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries she sustained during cataract surgery performed by defendant Mathisson at defendant Montefiore Medical Center, using an Alcon Series 20000 Legacy phacoemulsification machine. We previously granted summary judgment to Alcon, the manufacturer of the machine, dismissing plaintiff's claims for strict liability and negligent design and manufacture (54 A.D.3d 633, 865 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2008] ) ( Carmona I ). In so ruling, we found that Alcon sustained its prima facie burden on the motion by submitting an affidavit from its expert, an engineer familiar with the design and manufacture of the machine, who “opined that the product was not defectively designed or manufactured, and that a product defect did not cause [plaintiff's] injuries, positing other possible causes related to human error” ( id. at 634, 865 N.Y.S.2d 35). We further found that in opposing the motion, plaintiff “failed to exclude all alternative causes for the injury in response” ( id.).
The action proceeded to trial against the medical defendants and the trial court permitted defendants to elicit testimony that the Alcon machine malfunctioned or contained a design defect. In addition, the court included Alcon on the verdict sheet for the purpose of apportioning liability. We find that this was error.
“ ‘An appellate court's resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court ... [and] operates to foreclose re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law’ ” (Kenney v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 630, 630–631, 903 N.Y.S.2d 53 [2010], quoting J–Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809, 847 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2007] ). Under the doctrine, parties or their privies are “preclude[d from] relitigating an issue decided in an ongoing action where there previously was a full and fair opportunity to address the issue” ( Town of Massena v. Healthcare Underwriters Mut. Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 1177, 1179, 834 N.Y.S.2d 736 [2007]; see also Matter of Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lauria, 291 A.D.2d 492, 493, 739 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2002] ). Applying these principles, given our determination in Carmona I dismissing the products liability claims against Alcon, the trial court erred when it allowed the medical defendants to introduce evidence regarding a design or manufacturing defect in the Alcon Series 20000 Legacy phacoemulsification machine, and when it included Alcon on the verdict sheet for apportionment purposes.
We note, however, that our determination in Carmona I does not preclude the medical defendants from presenting a defense based on a claim of unexplained malfunction. In Carmona I, we found that Alcon's submissions satisfied its burden of establishing that the machine complied with applicable design and manufacturing standards and that plaintiff failed to exclude alternative causes for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayfield v. Evans
...David W., 95 N.Y.2d at 130, 711 N.Y.S.2d 134, 733 N.E.2d 206; For the People Theatres of N.Y. Inc., 84 A.D.3d at 63, 923 N.Y.S.2d 11). [938 N.Y.S.2d 300] In short, petitioner was entitled to a time assessment hearing that was similar in nature to the one that other individuals received unde......
-
Delgado v. City of N.Y.
...as well as the parties, are bound by it "absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law" (Carmona v. Mathisson, 92 A.D.3d 492, 492–493, 938 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1st Dept.2012]). Applying this rule to the case at hand, we specifically found in Delgado v. City of New York , 86 A.D.3d 502, ......
-
N.H. Ins. Co. v. MF Global Fin. USA Inc.
...[the] question ..." ( Delgado v. City of New York , 144 A.D.3d 46, 51, 38 N.Y.S.3d 129 [1st Dept. 2016], quoting Carmona v. Mathisson , 92 A.D.3d 492, 492-493, 938 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1st Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In that same vein, the motion court also corre......
-
Ardaya v. Park & 76TH St. Inc.
...v. Zabel, 146 A.D.3d 624, 631 (1st Dep't 2017); Delgado v. City of New York, 144 A.D.3d 46, 53 (1st Dep't 2016); Carmona v. Mathisson, 92 A.D.3d 492, 493 (1st Dep't 2012). Plaintiffs' failure to establish that Park and 76th St. and Gumley-Haft, among other defendants, exercised authority to......