Chipley v. Stephenson (2010)

I further note that CPLR 3043 also applies in the specific context of medical malpractice actions ( see generally Chipley v Stephenson , 72 AD3d 1548, 1549 [4th Dept 2010]; Stidham v Clerk , 57 AD3d 1369, 1369 [4th Dept 2008]; Garrett v Community Gen.

The affidavit therefore established that "[t]he specialized skills of [the] expert as demonstrated through his [or her] board certifications, taken together with the nature of the medical subject matter of th[e] action, are sufficient to support the inference that [his or her] opinion regarding [the] treatment [at issue] was reliable" ( Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med., Inc. , 177 AD3d 1256 , 1258 [4th Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Stradtman v Cavaretta [appea…

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, we conclude that defendant, a board certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon, was qualified to render an opinion on post-surgical wound care ( see generally Fay v Satterly , 158 AD3d 1220 , 1221 [4th Dept 2018]; Chipley v Stephenson , 72 AD3d 1548, 1549 [4th Dept 2010]).

We conclude that the expert’s affirmation was sufficient to demonstrate that the expert has “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that [the expert’s] opinion rendered [on the issues of negligence and proximate cause] is reliable” (Bickom v Bierwagen, 48 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Chipley v Stephenson, 72 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2010]; cf. Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2005], lv denied…

We conclude that the expert’s affirmation was sufficient to demonstrate that the expert has “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that [the expert’s] opinion rendered [on the issues of negligence and proximate cause] is reliable” (Bickom v Bierwagen, 48 AD3d 1247, 1248 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Chipley v Stephenson, 72 AD3d 1548, 1549 ; cf. Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045, 1047 , lv denied 6 NY3d 705 ).

We conclude that the expert’s affirmation was sufficient to demonstrate that the expert has “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that [the expert’s] opinion rendered [on the issues of negligence and proximate cause] is reliable” (Bickom v Bierwagen, 48 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Chipley v Stephenson, 72 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2010]; cf. Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2005], lv denied…