Case ID: ad3d_123/html/1011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yosif Tsimbler, Appellant, v Millie R. Fell, M.D., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
    [997 NYS2d 324]
   In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated April 9, 2014, which denied his motion for leave to renew his opposition to that branch of the motion of the defendants Millie R. Fell and Raymond Reich which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew her opposition to that branch of the motion of the defendants Millie R. Fell and Raymond Reich which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. “ ‘The retention of a new expert is not a legitimate basis for renewal’ ” (Loverde v Gill, 108 AD3d 748, 748 [2013], quoting Burgos v Rateb, 64 AD3d 530, 531 [2009]). In any event, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the affirmation of his new expert would have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Loverde v Gill, 108 AD3d at 748; Matter of Cusimano v Strianese Family Ltd. Partnership, 97 AD3d 744, 746 [2012]).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.