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.
10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1854–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leberman v. Glickgreen1 sentence2026Hosp. , 232 AD3d 585 , 586 (2d Dep't 2024) ("Where a plaintiff...alleges failure to timely diagnose, [he] must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury."); see also Leberman on Behalf of Miller v. Glick , 171 N.Y.S.3d 677, 681 (4th Dep't 2022) ("The loss of chance theory of causation...requires only that a plaintiff 'present evidence...that there was a 'substantial possibility' that the patient was denied a chance at a better outcome as a result of the defendant's deviation from the standard of ca | 1 | 1 |
Hanna v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp.green1 sentence2026Hosp. , 232 AD3d 585 , 586 (2d Dep't 2024) ("Where a plaintiff...alleges failure to timely diagnose, [he] must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury."); see also Leberman on Behalf of Miller v. Glick , 171 N.Y.S.3d 677, 681 (4th Dep't 2022) ("The loss of chance theory of causation...requires only that a plaintiff 'present evidence...that there was a 'substantial possibility' that the patient was denied a chance at a better outcome as a result of the defendant's deviation from the standard of ca | 1 | 1 |
Quispe v. Lemle & Wolff, Inc.green1 sentence2007The affidavit was also insufficient since it failed to address the detailed affirmation of defendant’s expert, addressed the alleged departures from the standard of care and proximate cause only in conclusory terms, was contradicted by the record (see Wong v Goldbaum, 23 AD3d 277, 279-280 [2005]), was based on a hospital record notation whose source was unknown and thus inadmissible (see Quispe v Lemle & Wolff, Inc., 266 AD2d 95, 96 [1999]), and was otherwise lacking in evidentiary foundation. | 1 | 1 |
Wong v. Goldbaumgreen1 sentence2007The affidavit was also insufficient since it failed to address the detailed affirmation of defendant’s expert, addressed the alleged departures from the standard of care and proximate cause only in conclusory terms, was contradicted by the record (see Wong v Goldbaum, 23 AD3d 277, 279-280 [2005]), was based on a hospital record notation whose source was unknown and thus inadmissible (see Quispe v Lemle & Wolff, Inc., 266 AD2d 95, 96 [1999]), and was otherwise lacking in evidentiary foundation. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paglinawan v. Ing-Yann Jeng
green
2 sentences2025Where a medical malpractice plaintiff alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the gravamen of the plaintiff's cause of action is that "the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury" ( Paglinawan v Ing-Yann Jeng , 211 AD3d 743, 745 ). 2024Where a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the plaintiff must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury ( see Paglinawan v Ing-Yann Jeng , 211 AD3d 743, 745 ; Maestri v Pasha , 198 AD3d 632, 635 ; Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. , 153 AD3d 538, 546 ). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Neyman v. Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services, P.C.
green
2 sentences2024Where a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the plaintiff must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury ( see Paglinawan v Ing-Yann Jeng , 211 AD3d 743, 745 ; Maestri v Pasha , 198 AD3d 632, 635 ; Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. , 153 AD3d 538, 546 ). 2022Where a medical malpractice plaintiff alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the plaintiff must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury ( see Maestri v Pasha , 198 AD3d 632, 635 ; Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. , 153 AD3d 538, 546 ; Flaherty v Fromberg , 46 AD3d 743, 745 ). | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Maestri v. Pasha
green
2 sentences2024Where a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the plaintiff must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury ( see Paglinawan v Ing-Yann Jeng , 211 AD3d 743, 745 ; Maestri v Pasha , 198 AD3d 632, 635 ; Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. , 153 AD3d 538, 546 ). 2022Where a medical malpractice plaintiff alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the plaintiff must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury ( see Maestri v Pasha , 198 AD3d 632, 635 ; Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. , 153 AD3d 538, 546 ; Flaherty v Fromberg , 46 AD3d 743, 745 ). | 2 | 2022–2024 |
E.G. v. Alzoobaee
green
2 sentences2025Thus, as to the alleged departures from the standard of care and proximate causation, Plaintiffs have not submitted an expert affirmation from a physician qualified to render reliable opinions on the relevant issues, and they have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact by addressing specific assertions made by the movant's expert ( see E.G. v. Alzoobaee , 230 NYS3d 738 [2d Dept. 2025]). 2025Thus, as to the alleged departures from the standard of care and proximate causation, Plaintiffs have not submitted an expert affirmation from a physician qualified to render reliable opinions on the relevant issues, and they have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact by addressing specific assertions made by the movant's expert ( see E.G. v. Alzoobaee , 230 NYS3d 738 [2d Dept. 2025]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Zabary v. North Shore Hosp. in Plainview
green
1 sentence2025Where a plaintiff alleges that a delay in diagnosis caused the injury, an expert affidavit that is conclusory and speculative and does not address or rebut a specific assertion that an alleged delay in diagnosis did not contribute to the alleged injuries is insufficient ( see Zabary v North Shore Hosp. in Plainview , 190 AD3d 790, 794 ; Iodice v Giordano , 170 AD3d 971 , 973). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Iodice v. Giordano
green
1 sentence2025Where a plaintiff alleges that a delay in diagnosis caused the injury, an expert affidavit that is conclusory and speculative and does not address or rebut a specific assertion that an alleged delay in diagnosis did not contribute to the alleged injuries is insufficient ( see Zabary v North Shore Hosp. in Plainview , 190 AD3d 790, 794 ; Iodice v Giordano , 170 AD3d 971 , 973). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Flaherty v. Fromberg
green
1 sentence2022Where a medical malpractice plaintiff alleges a failure to timely diagnose a condition, the plaintiff must show that the departures from the standard of care delayed diagnosis and decreased the chances of a better outcome or increased the injury ( see Maestri v Pasha , 198 AD3d 632, 635 ; Neyman v Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. , 153 AD3d 538, 546 ; Flaherty v Fromberg , 46 AD3d 743, 745 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Browder v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
1 sentence2011Corp., 37 AD3d 375 [2007]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Schlecter v. Abbondadello
green
2 sentences2010The plaintiffs remaining challenge to the jury charge is not preserved for appellate review (see Schlecter v Abbondadello, 5 AD3d 582 [2004]). 2010The plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review her challenge to the jury verdict sheet question regarding the alleged departures from the standard of care (see Schlecter v Abbondadello, 5 AD3d 582 [2004]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pellew v. Goldstein
neutral
1 sentence2007With respect to the defendants Dr. Melvin Ganz and Ganz & Grossman, D.D.S., P.C., the testimony of the plaintiffs expert witness did not establish a sufficient causal link between the alleged departures from the standard of care and the specific injuries suffered by the plaintiff (see Pellew v Goldstein, 279 AD2d 512 [2001]; Falotico v Frankel, 232 AD2d 607 [1996]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Falotico v. Frankel
neutral
1 sentence2007With respect to the defendants Dr. Melvin Ganz and Ganz & Grossman, D.D.S., P.C., the testimony of the plaintiffs expert witness did not establish a sufficient causal link between the alleged departures from the standard of care and the specific injuries suffered by the plaintiff (see Pellew v Goldstein, 279 AD2d 512 [2001]; Falotico v Frankel, 232 AD2d 607 [1996]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Moses v. Mead
green
1 sentence1854The case above referred to (1 Selden, 73), as also Moses v. Mead, 1 Denio, 378 ; Wright v. Hart, 18 Wend. 449 , and S. C. 17 Wend. 267 ; and Waring v. Mason, 425, show that, whatever may have been the departures from the rule in England and elsewhere, in this state, upon an executed contract for the sale of goods, the purchaser takes the risk of quality unless there is fraud or express warranty on the part of the seller. | 1 | 1854–1854 |
Hart v. Wright
neutral
1 sentence1854The case above referred to (1 Selden, 73), as also Moses v. Mead, 1 Denio, 378 ; Wright v. Hart, 18 Wend. 449 , and S. C. 17 Wend. 267 ; and Waring v. Mason, 425, show that, whatever may have been the departures from the rule in England and elsewhere, in this state, upon an executed contract for the sale of goods, the purchaser takes the risk of quality unless there is fraud or express warranty on the part of the seller. | 1 | 1854–1854 |