comparison test in New York

2014A comparison of the warnings given in People v Crampe ( 17 NY3d at 473-474 ) and by the hearing court in People v Wingate ( 17 NY3d 469, 475-480 [2011] [decided with Crampe]), which were found inadequate by the Court of Appeals, with inquiry conducted by the trial court in Wingate ( 17 NY3d at 476-480 ), which was found adequate, illustrates the extent of the inquiry that must be conducted. * We quote extensively from the Wingate trial court’s “extensive colloquy with defendant, drawing his attention to the many challenges that he would face if he proceeded pro se rather than avail himself of

2014A comparison of the warnings given in People v Crampe ( 17 NY3d at 473-474 ) and by the hearing court in People v Wingate ( 17 NY3d 469, 475-480 [2011] [decided with Crampe]), which were found inadequate by the Court of Appeals, with inquiry conducted by the trial court in Wingate ( 17 NY3d at 476-480 ), which was found adequate, illustrates the extent of the inquiry that must be conducted. * We quote extensively from the Wingate trial court’s “extensive colloquy with defendant, drawing his attention to the many challenges that he would face if he proceeded pro se rather than avail himself of

2015Likewise, whether Horizon breached applicable standards of care for medical offices in supervising and assisting decedent in view of her medical condition “necessitates a comparison to the standard of care customarily exercised by [comparable medical facilities] . . . [that] cannot be determined without a full appreciation and understanding of the operational demands and practices of [such facilities]” and raises issues of malpractice rather than negligence (Zellar v Tompkins Community Hosp., 124 AD2d 287, 289 [1986]; see Smee v Sisters of Charity Hosp. of Buffalo, 210 AD2d at 968 ; Miller v A

1990"Hospitals are duly charged to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding a patient, and whether a breach of that duty occurs necessitates a comparison to the standard of care customarily exercised by hospitals in the community” (Zellar v Tompkins Community Hosp., 124 AD2d 287, 289 ; see, 2B Warren, Negligence in New York Courts, Hospitals, § 5.01, at 485-488).

2011However, “when the expert’s opinion testimony that the substance contained cocaine is not based solely upon comparative tests using known standards but also on a series of other tests not involving known standards, a comparison test may then be relied upon by the expert” (People v Burnett, 245 AD2d at 460 ; see People v De La Rosa, 162 AD2d 698 [1990]).

1997However, when the expert’s opinion testimony that the substance contained cocaine is not based solely upon comparative tests using known standards but also on a series of other tests not involving known standards, a comparison test may then be relied upon by the expert (see, People v De La Rosa, supra; People v Flores, supra).

2015Likewise, whether Horizon breached applicable standards of care for medical offices in supervising and assisting decedent in view of her medical condition “necessitates a comparison to the standard of care customarily exercised by [comparable medical facilities] . . . [that] cannot be determined without a full appreciation and understanding of the operational demands and practices of [such facilities]” and raises issues of malpractice rather than negligence (Zellar v Tompkins Community Hosp., 124 AD2d 287, 289 [1986]; see Smee v Sisters of Charity Hosp. of Buffalo, 210 AD2d at 968 ; Miller v A

2004Rather than demonstrating an existing course of treatment, this fact pattern shows “ ‘a resumption of treatment rather than a continuation thereof ” (Fox v Glens Falls Hosp., 129 AD2d 955, 957 [1987], quoting Sherry v Queens Kidney Ctr., 117 AD2d 663, 665 [1986]).

2004Rather than demonstrating an existing course of treatment, this fact pattern shows “ ‘a resumption of treatment rather than a continuation thereof ” (Fox v Glens Falls Hosp., 129 AD2d 955, 957 [1987], quoting Sherry v Queens Kidney Ctr., 117 AD2d 663, 665 [1986]).

2004“A comparison of test results suggests adherence to appropriate diagnostic procedure, not a change in the level or nature of trust and confidence between patient and radiologist” (Noack v Symenow, 132 AD2d 965, 966 [1987]).