Lyons v DeNise
2014 NY Slip Op 04441 [118 AD3d 554]
June 17, 2014
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 30, 2014


[*1]
 Patrick Lyons et al., Appellants,
v
RichardDeNise et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Mark M. Basichas & Associates, P.C., New York (Aleksey Feygin of counsel),for appellants.

Dopf, P.C., New York (Martin B. Adams of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered February 25, 2013,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granteddefendants-respondents' (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matterof law by submitting their expert radiologist's affirmation, which explained thatdefendant radiologist's interpretation of a July 2008 Doppler study was within good andaccepted medical practice and was not a proximate cause of the delay in plaintiff PatrickLyons's cancer diagnosis (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325[1986]). Further, defendants' expert showed that since the study encompassed Patrick'supper leg, defendant radiologist could not have detected the cancer later diagnosed in thecalf (see Foster-Sturrup vLong, 95 AD3d 726, 728 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that any abnormality theirexpert radiologist found in the Doppler study was related to the cancer in Patrick's lowerleft leg. Indeed, plaintiffs' expert radiologist failed to indicate where the allegedabnormality appeared on Patrick's left leg (see Carlton v St. Barnabas Hosp., 91 AD3d 561, 562 [1stDept 2012]). Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that defendant radiologist'salleged misreading of [*2]the Doppler study of Patrick'supper left leg was a substantial factor in the delay in the cancer diagnosis of the lowerleft leg (see Dockery vSprecher, 68 AD3d 1043, 1046 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 17 NY3d 704[2011]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.