Shahram v. Horwitz
| Decision Date | 19 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | CA 03-01502. |
| Parties | ZAHRA SHAHRAM, Appellant, v. HANLEY HORWITZ, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered March 26, 2003. The judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict in a medical malpractice action.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint in this medical malpractice action upon a jury verdict of no cause of action and assessing costs in the amount of $700 against plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in permitting defendant, a plastic surgeon, to elicit testimony from both plaintiff and defendant concerning the fact that he had warned plaintiff of the potential adverse outcomes of the septorhinoplasty performed on plaintiff by defendant. According to plaintiff, that testimony was relevant to an assumption of risk defense, and defendant failed to plead such a defense. We reject plaintiff's contention. Defendant was properly allowed to elicit that testimony in order to attack the credibility of plaintiff with respect to her alleged priorities in having the surgery, i.e., whether her priority was to improve her breathing or to improve her appearance, as well as to counter plaintiff's allegations of negligence by showing that alar collapse is a known and accepted potential complication resulting from such surgery. Indeed, (Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 398 [2002], citing Schrempf v State of New York, 66 NY2d 289, 295 [1985]).
We conclude that the court erred in precluding plaintiff from questioning her medical expert with respect to a medical record that previously had been received in evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see generally CPLR 4518). The report at issue, an operative report of a surgeon who performed subsequent surgery on plaintiff, constituted out-of-court material "`of a kind accepted in the profession as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheridan v. Sheridan
...of the [father]’ ” (Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC, 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 ; Shahram v. Horwitz, 5 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 773 N.Y.S.2d 642 ).129 A.D.3d 1568Contrary to the father's further contention in appeal No. 1, the court did not err in admitting in evi......
-
State v. Wilkes
...Wlasiuk, 32 A.D.3d 674, 680, 821 N.Y.S.2d 285, lv. dismissed 7 N.Y.3d 871, 824 N.Y.S.2d 616, 857 N.E.2d 1147; Shahram v. Horwitz, M.D., 5 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 773 N.Y.S.2d 642). We thus conclude that the testimony was properly admitted after the court determined that its purpose was to explai......
- Waszak v. State of New York, CA 03-00728.
-
The admissibility of expert opinion and the bases of expert opinion in sex offender civil management trials in New York.
...(App. Div. 2d Dept. 1999); People v. Palacios, 302 A.D.2d 540, 541, 755 N.Y.S.2d 268, 269 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2003); Shahram v. Horowitz, 5 A.D.3d 1034, 1035, 773 N.Y.S.2d 642, 642 (App. Div. 4h Dept. 2004); O'Brien v. Mbugua, 49 A.D.3d 937, 938, 853 N.Y.S.2d 392, 393 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 20......
-
17.2 B. Medical Office Records
...of EEG and the records respecting it, made in the regular course of business, was prejudicial error). [420] . Shahram v. Horwitz, 5 A.D.3d 1034, 773 N.Y.S.2d 642 (4th Dep’t 2004) (medical malpractice action; plaintiff should have been allowed to question her medical expert with respect to a......