In October, 2003, the plaintiffs commenced this action for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent arising from defendant Robert V. Cattani's performance of abdomen, thighs, hips and arms liposuctions and mini abdominosplasty (tummy tuck) on February, 26, 2002, and corrective surgery on November 25, 2002, on plaintiff Carol Losavio. After issue was joined and the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the medical malpractice cause of action by submitting, inter alia, the medical records and his affidavit (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]). The affidavit of a defendant physician is sufficient to establish a prima facie entitled to summary judgment where the affidavit is detailed, specific and factual in nature and does not assert in simple conclusory form that the physician acted within the accepted standards of medical care (see, Suib v. Keller, 6 AD3d 805 [3d Dept. 2004]; Toomey v. Adirondack Surgical Ass., 280 AD2d 754 [3d Dept. 2001]). An affidavit of an independent medical expert is not required (see, Thomas v. Richie, 8 AD3d 363 [2d Dept. 2004]). Additionally, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant is qualified to give an opinion on the plaintiff's standard of care even though he is not a board certified plastic surgeon (see, McDermott v. Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20 [1964]). Any alleged lack of knowledge in a particular area of expertise goes to the weight to be given to his opinion, not its admissibility (see, Hraneck v. United Methodist Homes of the Wyoming Conference, 27 AD3d 879 [3d Dept. 2006]; Erbstein v Savasatit, 274 AD2d 445 [2d Dept. 2000]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact. The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a board-certified plastic surgeon, who examined the plaintiff Carol Losavio and identified at least two departures from accepted medical practice performing a [*2]mini abdominoplasty instead of a paniculectomy and improper performance of the procedures resulting in abdominal contour deformities and a large scar (see, Santiago v. Filstein, 35 AD3d 184 [ 1st Dept. 2006]; Smith v. Cattani, 2 AD3d 259 [1st Dept. 2003]).

Finally, the defendant established as a matter of law his entitlement to summary judgment on the lack of informed consent cause of action by submitting the signed written consent forms indicating the plaintiff's understanding of the risks involved in these procedures (see, Lynn G. v. Hugo, 96 NY2d 306 [2001]; Smith v. Cattani, 2 AD3d 259, supra). In opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by presenting the expert's opinion that the form was insufficient to satisfy the defendant's medical obligations under the circumstances, and the plaintiff's affidavit that the defendant never explained the risks of the procedure to her (see, Santiago v. Filstein, 35 AD3d 184 [1st Dept. 2006]; Corcino v. Filstein, 32 AD3d 201 [1st Dept. 2006]).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

This is the Order of the Court.

E N T E R,

Dated: April 13, 2007

J.S.C.