Fiore v. Galang

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 64 N.Y.2d 999, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16687

Decision Date: 3/28/1985

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16687 (1985)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1985

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 119 decisions

119

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.91

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.6

2d Cir.4

N.Y. Sup. Ct.3

S.D.N.Y.3

E.D.N.Y.2

Most recently cited by10

2026Corvera v. Ritz N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2026Lazar v. Lorich N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2026Boutov v. Hanson N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Jones v. Greuner N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Miranda v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025John-Cedeno v. New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation E.D.N.Y
2025Cota v. Adirondack Med. Ctr. N.Y. App. Div.
2025G.T. v. United States S.D.N.Y.
2024Maisano v. Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Carroll v. United States 2d Cir.

Cites 4 cases

Canter v. Mulnick
Stolowitz v. Mount Sinai Hospital
Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells
Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hospital, Inc.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Esther K. Fiore et al., Appellants, v Dominador Galang et al., Defendants, and Benedictine Hospital, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
David D. Glass for appellants.
Norman Bard for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree that absent a sufficient affidavit of merits it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant defendant Hospital’s motion for summary judgment (Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685). Moreover, in light of plaintiffs’ argument that the verified complaint should be accepted as an affidavit of merits (CPLR 105 [t]), we note that, except as to matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laymen, in a medical malpractice action, expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit (cf. Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 NY 389). This malpractice claim is for negligence in the failure to diagnose cancer and in the performance of an abdominal operation, which are not matters within the ordinary experience of laypersons.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.