Soriano v Inoa
2010 NY Slip Op 03843 [73 AD3d 459]
May 6, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 30, 2010


Harry Soriano, Appellant,
v
Rosa Inoa et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Respondent.

[*1] Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered November 6, 2008, which denied plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's expert notice. Accordingly, Gutstein's testimony as to causation should not have been precluded on the ground of plaintiff's late service of the notice. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.