Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Berger v. Beckergreen2 sentences2005To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert testimony that the defendants’ conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see Pace v Jakus, supra; Berger v Becker, supra). 2002To sustain this burden, the plaintiff must present expert testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see Berger v Becker, supra; Perrone v Grover, supra). | 1 | 3 |
Roseingrave v. Massapequa General Hospitalgreen1 sentence2011Hosp., 298 AD2d 377, 379 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Salzman v. Rosellgreen2 sentences1992Although the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Eisenberg, testified that in his opinion the angle of trephination was such that it caused entrance into the mandibular canal and severed some nerve fibers of the interior alveolar, he did not expressly state that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Salzman v Alan S. Rosell, D.D.S., P. C., 129 AD2d 833, 835 ). 1992Proof that the defendant’s conduct constitutes a deviation from the requisite standard of care could only be adduced by expert opinion testimony (Salzman v Alan S. Rosell, D.D.S., P. C., supra; Guillari v Gormley, 142 AD2d 927 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lasek v. Nachtigall
green
2 sentences2000To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert opinion testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 268 AD2d 574 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ; Gibson v D’ Amico, supra). 2000To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 268 AD2d 574 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ; Gibson v D' Amico, supra). | 4 | 1995–2000 |
Perrone v. Grover
green
2 sentences2025To meet its burden, plaintiff must "present expert opinion testimony that the defendant's conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care." Id. 2025To meet its burden, plaintiff must "present expert opinion testimony that the defendant's conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care." Id. | 3 | 2002–2025 |
Gibson v. D'Amico
green
2 sentences2000To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert opinion testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 268 AD2d 574 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ; Gibson v D’ Amico, supra). 2000To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 268 AD2d 574 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ; Gibson v D' Amico, supra). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Kalkan v. Nyack Hospital
green
2 sentences2000Accordingly, he was necessarily unable to make out a prima facie case, and the complaint was properly dismissed (see, Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538 ). 1996Since the plaintiff was unable to present expert opinion testimony to prove that the defendants’ conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care, she was unable to make out a prima facie case and the respective motions to dismiss the complaint were properly granted (see, Mankowski v Two Park Co., 225 AD2d 673 ; Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ). | 2 | 1996–2000 |
Kelly v. Lieber
neutral
2 sentences2000Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and affording them the benefit of every favorable inference (see, CPLR 4401; Ryan v Kassay, 267 AD2d 222 ; Kelly v Lieber, supra), we find that they failed to establish a prima facie case of malpractice. 2000Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording him the benefit of every favorable inference (see, CPLR 4401; Ryan v Kassay, 267 AD2d 222 ; Kelly v Lieber, supra), he failed to establish a prima facie case of malpractice. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Ryan v. Kassay
neutral
2 sentences2000Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and affording them the benefit of every favorable inference (see, CPLR 4401; Ryan v Kassay, 267 AD2d 222 ; Kelly v Lieber, supra), we find that they failed to establish a prima facie case of malpractice. 2000Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording him the benefit of every favorable inference (see, CPLR 4401; Ryan v Kassay, 267 AD2d 222 ; Kelly v Lieber, supra), he failed to establish a prima facie case of malpractice. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Republic Western Insurance v. RCR Builders, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert opinion testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 268 AD2d 574 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ; Gibson v D’ Amico, supra). 2000To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Reid v Rye Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 268 AD2d 574 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ; Gibson v D' Amico, supra). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Pace v. Jakus
green
1 sentence2005To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert testimony that the defendants’ conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see Pace v Jakus, supra; Berger v Becker, supra). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Porter v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.
green
1 sentence2002To sustain this burden, a plaintiff must present expert opinion testimony that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care (see, Perrone v Grover, supra; Prete v Rafla-Demetrious, 224 AD2d 674 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Prestia v. Mathur
green
1 sentence2002Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording him the benefit of every favorable inference (see CPLR 4401; Prestia v Mathur, supra), we agree with the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case against Drs. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mankowski v. Two Park Co.
green
1 sentence1996Since the plaintiff was unable to present expert opinion testimony to prove that the defendants’ conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care, she was unable to make out a prima facie case and the respective motions to dismiss the complaint were properly granted (see, Mankowski v Two Park Co., 225 AD2d 673 ; Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538 ; Lasek v Nachtigall, 189 AD2d 749 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sohn v. Sand
green
1 sentence1993Moreover, the plaintiff could not have made out a prima facie case since "[pjroof that the defendant’s conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care could only be adduced by expert opinion testimony” (Sohn v Sand, 180 AD2d 789, 790 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Berard
neutral
2 sentences1992Proof that the defendant’s conduct constitutes a deviation from the requisite standard of care could only be adduced by expert opinion testimony (Salzman v Alan S. Rosell, D.D.S., P. C., supra; Guillari v Gormley, 142 AD2d 927 ). 1992Proof that the defendant’s conduct constitutes a deviation from the requisite standard of care could only be adduced by expert opinion testimony (Salzman v Alan S. Rosell, D.D.S., P. C., supra; Guillari v Gormley, 142 AD2d 927 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |