Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DINO BONAVITA
AFFIRMATION IN
Plaintiff,
OPPOSITION
-against-
Index No.: 611506/2018
SYED MUJAHID SAYEED, M.D., PRECISION SURGERY OF
NEW YORK, P.C., NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL,
and NORTHWELL HEALTH,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Mark Laughlin, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State
of New York, affirms the truth of the following statements under penalty of perjury:
1. I am an associate of the law offices of CAITLIN ROBIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
attorneys for Plaintiff, DINO BONAVITA (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), in connection with the above-
referenced matter, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances pertaining to
this action.
2. I submit this affirmation in response and opposition to Defendant, SYED MUJAHID
SAYEED, M.D. and PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C.’s, (hereinafter Defendant)
Motion, dated August 29, 2022, which seeks an Order:
a. Pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgement to Defendants and
dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice;
b. Removing the names of Defendants SYED MUJAHID SAYEED, M.D.,
PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C. from the case caption;
c. Directing the entry of judgement in favor of Defendants SYED MUJAHID
SAYEED, M.D., PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C.; and
1 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
d. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
3. True and accurate copies of the following documents are annexed hereto:
• Plaintiff’s Counterstatement of Facts;
• Exhibit 1 – Expert Affirmation of Bert M. Greenberg, M.D.
4. References to Defendant’s Exhibits will be made in the following manner: “DEF EX ____,
pg. _____).”
5. Plaintiff adopts Defendant’s brief statement of Relevant Procedural History for purposes
of this Affirmation.
6. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the relief requested in Defendant’s
Summary Judgment Motion in its entirety because Defendant has not made a prima facie showing
of entitlement to summary judgment through the evidence presented. In the alternative,
Defendant’s motion should be denied because there are triable issues of fact pertaining to
Defendant’s potential liability. CPLR § 3212(b) provides, in relevant portion:
[A summary judgment] motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof
submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant
the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as
provided in subdivision (c) of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall
show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.
7. As summary judgment is a drastic remedy, depriving a litigant of its day in court, it should
only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of any triable issues (Sillman v.
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404 [1957]). The party seeking summary
judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,
tendering evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. A failure to make such
a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers
(Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]).
2
2 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
8. If the moving party makes a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law, the opposition must rebut the presumption that there are no triable issues of fact (Alvarez
v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986]). The non-moving litigant has the low burden of
merely raising any factual issue central to the case through submission of admissible evidence
(Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 [1980]).
A. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF
ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9. Pursuant to CPLR § 3212(b), “[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by an
affidavit… and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or the cause of action
has no merit.” The Affirmation furnished by Defendant’s expert witness, Roy Kulick, M.D., fails
to establish that Plaintiff’s causes of action have no merit and/or they fail to establish a prima facie
showing of Defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment.
10. In his Affirmation in Support of Summary Judgment, Dr. Kulick opines “there was no
departure from the accepted standards of care for the management of the hand injury by Dr. Sayeed
either in the initial hospital care or in the follow-up care rendered in his office;” “[t]he repair of
the tendon mechanism and skin were appropriately performed by Dr. Sayeed;” and “[Mr.
Bonavita’s] wounds had been properly explored, his injuries had been appropriately repaired, and
the patient had been instructed on the need for occupational therapy….” (Kulick Aff., pgs. 2, 5).
11. The relevant medical records alone contradict these statements because they tend to show
that the initial surgical repair and subsequent exploratory procedure performed by Dr. Sayeed
failed to achieve their intended results. As per Dr. Sayeed’s Operative Report from the July 21,
2017 surgical procedure, the purpose of the operation was, inter alia, “exploration of penetrating
wounds, right hand;” “repair of extensor tendon and lateral bands of right ring finger metacarpal
joint;” “repair of metacarpophalangeal joint capsule right ring finger;” and “repair of extensor
3
3 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
tendon at proximal interphalangeal joint right index finger” (DEF EX H, pg. 44). However,
subsequent imaging and the necessity for Mr. Bonavita to undergo a third surgical procedure on
October 31, 2017, indicate that these intended results were not achieved by Dr. Sayeed.
12. As documented in Dr. Sayeed’s records following the initial surgical procedure performed
on July, 21, 2017, Mr. Bonavita presented with complaints of sensation of a foreign body in the
right ring finger distal to the metacarpophalangeal (“MCP”) joint on October 4, 2017.
Contemporaneous X-ray imaging was taken of Mr. Bonavita’s right hand, which indicated the
presence of “faint small linear densities adjacent to the distal aspect right fourth proximal phalanx
compatible with foreign bodies,” which is consistent with Mr. Bonavita’s complaints (EX H, pg.
21).
13. Despite the results of the October 4, 2017 X-ray showing the presence of foreign bodies
present in the Plaintiff’s right hand, Dr. Sayeed elected to only perform an exploratory procedure
which entailed “[a]rea of maximal pain explored through old scar under local anesthesia;” the
result of which was “[n]o foreign bodies felt” (DEF EX H, pg. 16). It is unclear why Dr. Sayeed
opted to merely palpate the presence of foreign bodies with no attempt at enhanced and/or
visualization, despite the complaints of Mr. Bonavita and the results of the x-ray imaging. It is
similarly unclear how Dr. Sayeed failed to discover the presence of such foreign bodies despite
the results of the October 4, 2017 x-ray imaging.
14. Additionally, subsequent imaging and the necessity for a third surgical procedure tend to
show that Dr. Sayeed failed to repair the injured tendons and ligaments in Mr. Bonavita’s hand in
the July 21, 2017 procedure. After the exploratory procedure performed by Dr. Sayeed on October
12, 2017, the Plaintiff presented to Dr. Greenberg on October 16, 2017, with continued reports of
pain following a “failed attempt to remove FB (“foreign bodies”)(DEF EX J, pg. 13). An MRI
4
4 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
was taken of Mr. Bonavita’s right hand on October 18, 2017, which indicated “partial tear of the
right fourth finger extensor tendon and sagittal band at the level of the fourth MP joint,
accompanied by enhancing edema” (DEF EX H, pg. 15).
15. On October 31, 2017, Dr. Greenberg performed an exploration of Mr. Bonavita’s injury
under loupe magnification, which revealed “1) callus within a segment of the length of tendon
without primary extensor tendon anastomosis; 2) laceration and tear of the radial portion of the
sagittal band at the right 4th MC with RRF tendon decentralization: 3) glass appearing foreign
bodies at the level of the dorsal aspect of the RRF…; 4) fragments of dark colored suture material,
not incorporated into any tendon repair.” Dr. Greenberg performed surgery which entailed
removal of glass foreign bodies and loose suture material, removal of lateral tendon-based scar
tissue, repair of the radial sagittal band, proximal and distal tenolysis, repair of the joint capsule,
removal of suture callus, and extensor tendon repair (DEF EX. J, pgs. 22-23).
16. Based on the referenced imaging and the records of the third surgical procedure performed
on Mr. Bonavita, Defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary
judgment by conclusively eliminating all triable issues of fact. Because the imaging made
subsequent to Dr. Sayeed’s two procedures showed existing damage to the tendons and ligaments,
existing significant presence of foreign bodies, and because further surgery was required to correct
this issues, Defendant’s argument that it has met its prima facie burden is contradicted by the
records alone.
B. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S
ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
17. In addition to Defendant failing to meet its prima facie burden of entitlement to summary
judgment, summary judgment should be denied because there are clearly identifiable issues of
triable fact. It is well-settled that when conflicting affidavits and other contradictory evidence is
5
5 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
submitted by opposing parties, summary judgment should be denied (Webar Inc. v. Capra, 212
A.D.2d 594, 596 [2nd Dept 1995]). Plaintiff presents the Affirmation of Dr. Burt Greenberg, who
presents expert medical opinions which contradict those of Defendant’s medical expert, Roy
Kulick, M.D, thus presenting issues of fact to be determined at trial.
18. Dr. Greenberg disagrees with Dr. Kulick on several of the opinions offered in his expert
Affirmation. First, Dr. Greenberg does not agree with Dr. Kulick’s assessment that the repair of
the tendon mechanism in Mr. Bonavita’s right hand was appropriately performed. As detailed
above and interpreted by Dr. Greenberg, the medical records show that Dr. Sayeed failed to achieve
the intended results of the July 21, 2017 surgery he performed, because the tendon and ligament
repairs were not performed adequately, as shown by the October 18, 2017 MRI, Dr. Greenberg’s
own exploration of the wound, and the necessity of the third surgical procedure performed on
October 31, 2017. Dr. Greenberg opines that Dr. Sayeed failed to properly repair the extensor
tendon and lateral bands of the right ring finger metacarpal joint, and failed to repair the MP joint
capsule of the right ring finger, despite Dr. Sayeed’s post-operative report to the contrary (Exhibit
1, pg. 5)
19. Dr. Greenberg further disagrees with Dr. Kulick’s opinion that Dr. Sayeed’s postoperative
care rendered to Mr. Bonavita was at all times appropriate and within the relevant standard of care
(Kulick Aff, pg. 6). According to Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Sayeed could and should have appreciated
the presence of remaining foreign bodies and his previous failure to repair the tendon and ligaments
in Mr. Bonavita’s hand during the October 12, 2017 exploratory procedure. These failures, which
necessitated the third surgical procedure to correct Dr. Sayeed’s failings, were significant
departures from the relevant standards of care in Dr Greenberg’s opinion (Id).
20. Dr. Greenberg also opines that the extent of the corrective surgery he performed on October
6
6 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
31, 2017 would not have been necessary if Dr. Sayeed had proficiently performed the July 21,
2017 procedure proficiently. Aside from the presence of glass shards in Mr. Bonavita’s surgical
wound, Dr. Greenberg also discovered the presence of loose suture material which he believes
were left during one or both of the procedures performed by Dr. Sayeed.
21. According to Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Sayeed’s failure to properly repair the tendon and
ligament mechanisms in Mr. Bonavita’s hand during the July 21, 2017 procedure, his failure to
later visualize the remaining presence of foreign bodies in the wound, his own introduction of
foreign bodies into the wound, and his failure to recognize that his intended result of the July 2017
procedure were not achieved were all significant departures from the standard of care and good
and accepted practice in the field of hand surgery. Dr. Greenberg further opines that these
identified departures from the relevant standard of care are the proximate cause of injury to Mr.
Bonavita, including permanent limitation to the range of motion in his right hand and causing him
to experience prolonged pain and suffering.
22. Because the parties have submitted conflicting expert medical Affirmations and because a
review of the records indicate that Defendant has failed to make a prima facie, Defendant has
failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment and the present motion should be denied.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order
denying Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety and for such other and further relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
Dated: October 6, 2022
New York, New York
7
7 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
_________________________
Mark Laughlin, Esq.
CAITLIN ROBIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff Dino Bonavita
30 Broad Street, Suite 702
New York, New York 10004
(646) 524-6026
8
8 of 9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022
PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(f)(j), that the foregoing Affirmation was
prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.
Type – A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:
Name of typeface: Times New Roman
Point size: 12
Line spacing: Double
Word Count – The total number of words in the foregoing Counterstatement of Facts and
Affirmation in Opposition, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of proof of
service and this Statement is 3076 words.
Mark Laughlin
October 6, 2022
9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X DINO BONAVITA AFFIRMATION IN Plaintiff, OPPOSITION -against- Index No.: 611506/2018 SYED MUJAHID SAYEED, M.D., PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C., NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, and NORTHWELL HEALTH, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Mark Laughlin, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the truth of the following statements under penalty of perjury: 1. I am an associate of the law offices of CAITLIN ROBIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, attorneys for Plaintiff, DINO BONAVITA (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), in connection with the above- referenced matter, and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances pertaining to this action. 2. I submit this affirmation in response and opposition to Defendant, SYED MUJAHID SAYEED, M.D. and PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C.’s, (hereinafter Defendant) Motion, dated August 29, 2022, which seeks an Order: a. Pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgement to Defendants and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice; b. Removing the names of Defendants SYED MUJAHID SAYEED, M.D., PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C. from the case caption; c. Directing the entry of judgement in favor of Defendants SYED MUJAHID SAYEED, M.D., PRECISION SURGERY OF NEW YORK, P.C.; and 1 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 d. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 3. True and accurate copies of the following documents are annexed hereto: • Plaintiff’s Counterstatement of Facts; • Exhibit 1 – Expert Affirmation of Bert M. Greenberg, M.D. 4. References to Defendant’s Exhibits will be made in the following manner: “DEF EX ____, pg. _____).” 5. Plaintiff adopts Defendant’s brief statement of Relevant Procedural History for purposes of this Affirmation. 6. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the relief requested in Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion in its entirety because Defendant has not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through the evidence presented. In the alternative, Defendant’s motion should be denied because there are triable issues of fact pertaining to Defendant’s potential liability. CPLR § 3212(b) provides, in relevant portion: [A summary judgment] motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. 7. As summary judgment is a drastic remedy, depriving a litigant of its day in court, it should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of any triable issues (Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404 [1957]). The party seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. A failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]). 2 2 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 8. If the moving party makes a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the opposition must rebut the presumption that there are no triable issues of fact (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986]). The non-moving litigant has the low burden of merely raising any factual issue central to the case through submission of admissible evidence (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 [1980]). A. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9. Pursuant to CPLR § 3212(b), “[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by an affidavit… and it shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or the cause of action has no merit.” The Affirmation furnished by Defendant’s expert witness, Roy Kulick, M.D., fails to establish that Plaintiff’s causes of action have no merit and/or they fail to establish a prima facie showing of Defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment. 10. In his Affirmation in Support of Summary Judgment, Dr. Kulick opines “there was no departure from the accepted standards of care for the management of the hand injury by Dr. Sayeed either in the initial hospital care or in the follow-up care rendered in his office;” “[t]he repair of the tendon mechanism and skin were appropriately performed by Dr. Sayeed;” and “[Mr. Bonavita’s] wounds had been properly explored, his injuries had been appropriately repaired, and the patient had been instructed on the need for occupational therapy….” (Kulick Aff., pgs. 2, 5). 11. The relevant medical records alone contradict these statements because they tend to show that the initial surgical repair and subsequent exploratory procedure performed by Dr. Sayeed failed to achieve their intended results. As per Dr. Sayeed’s Operative Report from the July 21, 2017 surgical procedure, the purpose of the operation was, inter alia, “exploration of penetrating wounds, right hand;” “repair of extensor tendon and lateral bands of right ring finger metacarpal joint;” “repair of metacarpophalangeal joint capsule right ring finger;” and “repair of extensor 3 3 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 tendon at proximal interphalangeal joint right index finger” (DEF EX H, pg. 44). However, subsequent imaging and the necessity for Mr. Bonavita to undergo a third surgical procedure on October 31, 2017, indicate that these intended results were not achieved by Dr. Sayeed. 12. As documented in Dr. Sayeed’s records following the initial surgical procedure performed on July, 21, 2017, Mr. Bonavita presented with complaints of sensation of a foreign body in the right ring finger distal to the metacarpophalangeal (“MCP”) joint on October 4, 2017. Contemporaneous X-ray imaging was taken of Mr. Bonavita’s right hand, which indicated the presence of “faint small linear densities adjacent to the distal aspect right fourth proximal phalanx compatible with foreign bodies,” which is consistent with Mr. Bonavita’s complaints (EX H, pg. 21). 13. Despite the results of the October 4, 2017 X-ray showing the presence of foreign bodies present in the Plaintiff’s right hand, Dr. Sayeed elected to only perform an exploratory procedure which entailed “[a]rea of maximal pain explored through old scar under local anesthesia;” the result of which was “[n]o foreign bodies felt” (DEF EX H, pg. 16). It is unclear why Dr. Sayeed opted to merely palpate the presence of foreign bodies with no attempt at enhanced and/or visualization, despite the complaints of Mr. Bonavita and the results of the x-ray imaging. It is similarly unclear how Dr. Sayeed failed to discover the presence of such foreign bodies despite the results of the October 4, 2017 x-ray imaging. 14. Additionally, subsequent imaging and the necessity for a third surgical procedure tend to show that Dr. Sayeed failed to repair the injured tendons and ligaments in Mr. Bonavita’s hand in the July 21, 2017 procedure. After the exploratory procedure performed by Dr. Sayeed on October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff presented to Dr. Greenberg on October 16, 2017, with continued reports of pain following a “failed attempt to remove FB (“foreign bodies”)(DEF EX J, pg. 13). An MRI 4 4 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 was taken of Mr. Bonavita’s right hand on October 18, 2017, which indicated “partial tear of the right fourth finger extensor tendon and sagittal band at the level of the fourth MP joint, accompanied by enhancing edema” (DEF EX H, pg. 15). 15. On October 31, 2017, Dr. Greenberg performed an exploration of Mr. Bonavita’s injury under loupe magnification, which revealed “1) callus within a segment of the length of tendon without primary extensor tendon anastomosis; 2) laceration and tear of the radial portion of the sagittal band at the right 4th MC with RRF tendon decentralization: 3) glass appearing foreign bodies at the level of the dorsal aspect of the RRF…; 4) fragments of dark colored suture material, not incorporated into any tendon repair.” Dr. Greenberg performed surgery which entailed removal of glass foreign bodies and loose suture material, removal of lateral tendon-based scar tissue, repair of the radial sagittal band, proximal and distal tenolysis, repair of the joint capsule, removal of suture callus, and extensor tendon repair (DEF EX. J, pgs. 22-23). 16. Based on the referenced imaging and the records of the third surgical procedure performed on Mr. Bonavita, Defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by conclusively eliminating all triable issues of fact. Because the imaging made subsequent to Dr. Sayeed’s two procedures showed existing damage to the tendons and ligaments, existing significant presence of foreign bodies, and because further surgery was required to correct this issues, Defendant’s argument that it has met its prima facie burden is contradicted by the records alone. B. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT PRECLUDING DEFENDANT’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17. In addition to Defendant failing to meet its prima facie burden of entitlement to summary judgment, summary judgment should be denied because there are clearly identifiable issues of triable fact. It is well-settled that when conflicting affidavits and other contradictory evidence is 5 5 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 submitted by opposing parties, summary judgment should be denied (Webar Inc. v. Capra, 212 A.D.2d 594, 596 [2nd Dept 1995]). Plaintiff presents the Affirmation of Dr. Burt Greenberg, who presents expert medical opinions which contradict those of Defendant’s medical expert, Roy Kulick, M.D, thus presenting issues of fact to be determined at trial. 18. Dr. Greenberg disagrees with Dr. Kulick on several of the opinions offered in his expert Affirmation. First, Dr. Greenberg does not agree with Dr. Kulick’s assessment that the repair of the tendon mechanism in Mr. Bonavita’s right hand was appropriately performed. As detailed above and interpreted by Dr. Greenberg, the medical records show that Dr. Sayeed failed to achieve the intended results of the July 21, 2017 surgery he performed, because the tendon and ligament repairs were not performed adequately, as shown by the October 18, 2017 MRI, Dr. Greenberg’s own exploration of the wound, and the necessity of the third surgical procedure performed on October 31, 2017. Dr. Greenberg opines that Dr. Sayeed failed to properly repair the extensor tendon and lateral bands of the right ring finger metacarpal joint, and failed to repair the MP joint capsule of the right ring finger, despite Dr. Sayeed’s post-operative report to the contrary (Exhibit 1, pg. 5) 19. Dr. Greenberg further disagrees with Dr. Kulick’s opinion that Dr. Sayeed’s postoperative care rendered to Mr. Bonavita was at all times appropriate and within the relevant standard of care (Kulick Aff, pg. 6). According to Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Sayeed could and should have appreciated the presence of remaining foreign bodies and his previous failure to repair the tendon and ligaments in Mr. Bonavita’s hand during the October 12, 2017 exploratory procedure. These failures, which necessitated the third surgical procedure to correct Dr. Sayeed’s failings, were significant departures from the relevant standards of care in Dr Greenberg’s opinion (Id). 20. Dr. Greenberg also opines that the extent of the corrective surgery he performed on October 6 6 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 31, 2017 would not have been necessary if Dr. Sayeed had proficiently performed the July 21, 2017 procedure proficiently. Aside from the presence of glass shards in Mr. Bonavita’s surgical wound, Dr. Greenberg also discovered the presence of loose suture material which he believes were left during one or both of the procedures performed by Dr. Sayeed. 21. According to Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Sayeed’s failure to properly repair the tendon and ligament mechanisms in Mr. Bonavita’s hand during the July 21, 2017 procedure, his failure to later visualize the remaining presence of foreign bodies in the wound, his own introduction of foreign bodies into the wound, and his failure to recognize that his intended result of the July 2017 procedure were not achieved were all significant departures from the standard of care and good and accepted practice in the field of hand surgery. Dr. Greenberg further opines that these identified departures from the relevant standard of care are the proximate cause of injury to Mr. Bonavita, including permanent limitation to the range of motion in his right hand and causing him to experience prolonged pain and suffering. 22. Because the parties have submitted conflicting expert medical Affirmations and because a review of the records indicate that Defendant has failed to make a prima facie, Defendant has failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment and the present motion should be denied. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: October 6, 2022 New York, New York 7 7 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 _________________________ Mark Laughlin, Esq. CAITLIN ROBIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Dino Bonavita 30 Broad Street, Suite 702 New York, New York 10004 (646) 524-6026 8 8 of 9 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2022 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 611506/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2022 PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT I hereby certify, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(f)(j), that the foregoing Affirmation was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word. Type – A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows: Name of typeface: Times New Roman Point size: 12 Line spacing: Double Word Count – The total number of words in the foregoing Counterstatement of Facts and Affirmation in Opposition, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of proof of service and this Statement is 3076 words. Mark Laughlin October 6, 2022 9 9 of 9