Kilgore v. Rochdale Vill., Inc., 252 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Kilgore v. Rochdale Vill., Inc., 252 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, 2008–2019 · …expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause ⚠ not in text
81 citation events (79 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Santiago v. Berman (6×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. · 2025 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause . . . .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zurich American Insurance Company v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
N.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Machines Corp., 116 A.D.3d 121 , 127 (3d Dept. 2014) (quoting Lyons v. McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 (2d Dept.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Guira v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Lyons v. McCauley, 252 A.D.2d 516, 517 (2d Dep’t 1998); see also Sitts v. United States, 811 F.2d 736, 739 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mooney v. New York Fertility Institute (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2022 · confidence medium
Expert testimony is required to establish deviation from the standard of care and proximate causation, id., unless proximate cause is within the ken of a lay juror, Lyons v. McCauley, 252 A.D.2d 516, 517 (2d Dep’t 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pieter v. Polin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Hosp. at Plainview, 55 AD3d 780, 781 [2008], quoting Berger v Becker, 272 AD2d 565, 565 [2000]; see Brown v Shah, 109 AD3d 948 , 949 [2013]; Dockery v Sprecher, 68 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2009]; Harper v Findling, 38 AD3d 601, 602 [2007]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]). “ ‘Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause’ ” (Novick v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 136 AD3d 999, 1000 [2016], quoting Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d at 517 ; see Sushchenko v Dyker Emergency Physicians Serv., P.C., 86 AD3d 638, 63…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pitt v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” (Alicea v Ligouri, 54 AD3d 784, 784-785 [2008], citing Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; see Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitnum v. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Once such a showing has been made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Fritz v Burman, 107 AD3d 936, 940 [2013]). “ ‘Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause’ ” (Novick v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 136 AD3d 999, 1000 [2016], quoting Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seitz v. TJX Companies, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant (see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. Heralall
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant (see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]; Hughes v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. Heralall
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant (see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]; Hughes v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ivory v. International Business Machines Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of care and establish proximate cause “unless the matter is one which is within the experience and observation of the ordinary juror” (Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 814 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ivory v. International Business Machines Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of care and establish proximate cause “unless the matter is one which is within the experience and observation of the ordinary juror” (Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 814 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wild v. Catholic Health System
NY · 2013 · confidence medium
It is well settled that a “plaintiff must generally show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in producing the injury” to satisfy “the burden of proving a prima facie case” in a medical malpractice action (see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [2d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 814 [1998]; see also Derdiarian v Felix Contr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sushchenko v. Dyker Emergency Physicians Service,P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from the accepted standard of medical care and to establish proximate cause where, as here, the matter is not within the experience of the ordinary juror (see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Swezey v. Montague Rehab & Pain Management
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Hosp. at Plainview, 55 AD3d 780, 781 [2008]; Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assoc., 268 AD2d 574 [2000]; Reed v Episcopal Health Servs., 269 AD2d 514, 514 [2000]; Giambona v Stein, 265 AD2d 775, 775-776 [1999]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yankus v. Kelly
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with the purported affirmation of his expert (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324-325 ), who conclusorily opined that the defendants departed from good and accepted medical care, but failed to address Dr. Fleischman’s opinions that there was no evidence of a causal relationship between the LASIK surgery and the plaintiffs injury, or that the plaintiffs car accident was the proximate cause of the retina detachment (see Viola v Blanco, 1 AD3d 506 , 507 [2003]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998])…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dockery v. Sprecher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Generally, expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause (see Texter v Middletown Dialysis Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 831 [2005]; Berger v Becker, 272 AD2d 565 [2000]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; see also Koehler v Schwartz, 48 NY2d 807, 808 [1979]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arkin v. Resnick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Ctr., 54 AD3d 852, 853 [2008]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perricone-Bernovich v. Dental
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The proper legal standard for deciding a defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deadwyler v. North Shore University Hospital at Plainview
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
“Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause” (Nichols v Stamer, 49 AD3d 832, 833 [2008], quoting Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; see Berger v Becker, 272 AD2d at 566 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Myers v. Ferrara
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs expert offered no competent proof that it was (cf. Germaine v Yu, 49 AD3d at 687 ; Keevan v Rifkin, 41 AD3d 661, 662 [2007]; Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430, 431 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Naughton v Arden Hill Hosp., 215 AD2d 810, 812 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alicea v. Ligouri
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant (see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bryan v. Staten Island University Hospital (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant movant has the burden of showing that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case (see generally Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430, 431 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 516-517 [1998]; Hughes v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zak v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The plaintiff is required to show that the alleged deviation was a “substantial factor in producing the injury” (Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nichols v. Stamer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, the defendant has the burden of showing that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case (see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430, 431 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Hughes v New York Hosp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Durkin v. Long Island Power Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, the moving party has the burden of showing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in the nonmoving party’s favor (see Velez v Goldenberg, 29 AD3d 780 [2006]; Wong v Tang, 2 AD3d 840 [2003]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 516-517 [1998]; see also Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Borawski v. Huang
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant (see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz, 8 AD3d 430, 431 [2004]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]; Hughes v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Velez v. Goldenberg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff and against the moving defendant (see Wong v Tang, 2 AD 3d 840 [2003]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 516-517 [1998]; see also Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleet National Bank v. Cove Car Care Center, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
“To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case (see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 516-517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Magidenko v. Consolidated Edison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case (see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 516-517 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wong v. Tang
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant (see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 AD2d 440 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Viola v. Blanco
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant Dr. Blanco’s choice of the Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) procedure over the Laser In-Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) procedure was the proximate cause of the corneal infections which she sustained, or that such infections could have been prevented with the use of another prophylactic antibiotic (see Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 398-400 [2002]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Fallon v Loree, 136 AD2d 956 [1988]; Schreiber v Cestari, 40 AD2d 1025, 1026 [1972]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schuller v. Martinelli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, expert testimony was needed here because the medical consequences of a failure to have a catheterization are not “within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons” (Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941, 942 [1992]; see Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1001 [1985]; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 814 [1998] ; McGinn v Sellitti, 150 AD2d 967, 968 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dombrowski v. Moore
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Here, there is a fair interpretation of the evidence that the esophageal tear was “a substantial factor in producing [all of] plaintiff’s injuries” (Valentine v Lopez, 283 AD2d 739, 741 ; cf. Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517, lv denied 92 NY2d 814 ; see generally Derdiarian v Felix Contr.
discussed Cited "see" Grasso v. Nassau County
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
"Once such a showing has been made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact" ( id. ; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 ). " Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause'" ( Novick v South Nassau Communities Hosp. , 136 AD3d 999, 1000 , quoting Lyons v McCauley , 252 AD2d 516, 517 ).
cited Cited "see" Feteha v. Scheinman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Hosp. , 160 AD3d 614 , 618, quoting Nichols v Stamer , 49 AD3d 832, 833 ; see Lyons v McCauley , 252 AD2d 516, 517 ).
cited Cited "see" Daniele v. Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Hosp. , 160 AD3d 614 , 618, quoting Nichols v Stamer , 49 AD3d 832, 833 ; see Lyons v McCauley , 252 AD2d 516, 517 ).
discussed Cited "see" Floyd v. 1710 Realty, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
“To be awarded a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” (Alicea v Ligouri, 54 AD3d 784, 784-785 [2008]; see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]).
cited Cited "see" McKenzie v. Abrahams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Ctr., 54 AD3d 852, 853 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; Orr v Meisel, 248 AD2d 451 [1998]).
cited Cited "see" Torres v. City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lyons v. McCauley, 252 A.D.2d 516, 517 , 675 N.Y.S.2d 375, 376 (2d Dep’t 1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bonita Kilgore
v.
Rochdale Village, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 13, 1998.
252 A.D.2d 516
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 18, 1997, which denied her motion to renew the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application’ ” (Mayer v McBrunigan Constr. Corp., 123 AD2d 606, quoting Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352). Here, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her failure to submit evidence of the deed, a public record. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to renew.

Under the circumstances of this case sanctions are not warranted. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.