- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Estate of Annie Maliniak v. New York Methodist Hospital
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03424
Background
Plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of her 90-year-old mother Annie Maliniak (the decedent), commenced this action for medical malpractice against defendant New York Methodist Hospital. The complaint alleged that defendant failed to recognize and treat bed sores and ulcers that the decedent developed and which worsened while in defendant’s care. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendant submitted an expert affirmation establishing prima facie that there was no departure from the accepted standard of care and that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of injury. In opposition, plaintiff submitted expert opinions that the Court scrutinized for compliance with the standards governing expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, with costs. The Court found that defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through its expert’s affirmation, which demonstrated either no departure from accepted practice or no proximate causation. In opposition, plaintiff’s expert opinions were found to be insufficient to raise triable issues of fact.
The Court applied the principle that expert opinions in opposition must address specific assertions by the movant’s experts, set forth explanations of reasoning, and rely on specifically cited evidence in the record. Where a physician opines outside their area of specialization, a foundation must be laid to support the reliability of the opinion. Where no such foundation is established, the expert’s opinion lacks probative value and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Plaintiff’s expert submissions failed to meet these requirements.
Takeaways
This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for medical expert affidavits opposing summary judgment in malpractice cases. Conclusory or speculative opinions are insufficient, and experts venturing beyond their specialty must have a demonstrated foundation of reliability. The case is a reminder that simply retaining an expert is not enough—the expert must engage with the specific assertions of the opposing expert and ground their opinions in the evidentiary record. Plaintiffs in elder care malpractice cases face the same exacting standards as in any other medical malpractice context.
Why It Matters
For medical malpractice practitioners, this case underscores the critical gatekeeping function that summary judgment serves. Defendant hospitals will aggressively seek summary judgment with well-credentialed experts, and plaintiffs must respond with experts whose opinions are specific, well-founded, and within their areas of competence. Cases involving elder care—including bed sore claims—require the same level of expert precision as surgical or diagnostic malpractice claims. The decision also highlights the importance of retaining experts with appropriate specialization rather than relying on generalists who may lack the foundation to opine credibly in a particular clinical area.