- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- McNeill v. Gewirtz
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03366
Background
Plaintiff Ella McNeill brought this medical malpractice action against defendant Andrew Gewirtz, a doctor, and Uptown Healthcare Management, Inc. The claims arose from a phacoemulsification surgery performed by defendant doctor, which the plaintiff alleged caused her injuries. The plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleged various injuries including blurry vision, eye pain, headaches, double vision, instability due to distorted vision, and the need for subsequent corrective surgery. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiff successfully opposed, resulting in the court finding material questions of fact regarding the defendants’ treatment. Plaintiff then moved to conform her pleadings to the evidence under CPLR 3025(c), seeking to add claims supported by the evidence developed during discovery. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion to conform, and the plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted the motion to conform the pleadings to the evidence. Under CPLR 3025(c), a court may permit pleadings to be conformed to the proof at any time, and such conformance is generally favored when the evidence supports the amendment and the opposing party will not be prejudiced. The Court found that the evidence developed during discovery, including expert testimony and medical records, supported the additional claims the plaintiff sought to add. The Court also found no prejudice to the defendants, as the underlying facts and medical issues had been fully explored during discovery and the defendants were aware of the nature of the plaintiff’s claims.
Takeaways
CPLR 3025(c) provides a liberal mechanism for conforming pleadings to the evidence, and courts should generally grant such motions when the evidence supports the proposed amendments and the opposing party will not be unfairly surprised or prejudiced. In medical malpractice cases, where the full extent of the malpractice may not be apparent until expert analysis is completed, conforming the pleadings to reflect the evidence developed during discovery is particularly appropriate. The fact that the underlying medical issues and treatment were fully explored during discovery negates any claim of surprise or prejudice.
Why It Matters
This reversal is significant for medical malpractice practitioners because it confirms the broad availability of CPLR 3025(c) to conform pleadings to evidence that emerges during discovery. Medical malpractice claims often evolve as expert review reveals additional theories of liability beyond those originally pleaded. The decision ensures that plaintiffs are not locked into their initial pleading theories when the evidence supports additional or modified claims. Defense attorneys should anticipate that plaintiffs may seek to conform their pleadings after expert discovery and should address this possibility in their litigation strategy.