Case Name: Harry Soriano, Appellant, v. Rosa Inoa et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2010-05-06
Citations: 73 A.D.3d 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry Soriano, Appellant, v Rosa Inoa et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
Harry Soriano, Appellant, v Rosa Inoa et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Respondent.
[899 NYS2d 614]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J), entered November 6, 2008, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside a trial order dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for further discovery on the newly revealed material and for a new trial.
It is unclear from the trial record whether Dr. Gutstein was an expert witness as to whom CPLR 3101 (d) notice was required, or plaintiffs treating physician, as to whom no notice was required (see e.g. Breen v Laric Entertainment Corp., 2 AD3d 298, 299-300 [2003]). Moreover, it is clear that the prejudice to defendants arose from the lack of proper authorizations for medical records and not from the report annexed to plaintiffs expert notice. Accordingly, Gutstein's testimony as to causation should not have been precluded on the ground of plaintiffs late service of the notice. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.