| Sadek v Wesley |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03209 [27 NY3d 982] |
| April 28, 2016 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, June 15, 2016 |
| Kamel R. Sadek, Respondent, v Jenkins A. Wesley et al., Appellants. |
Argued March 23, 2016; decided April 28, 2016
Sadek v Wesley, 117 AD3d 193, affirmed.
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York City (Gerald T. Ford, Diane J. Ruccia and Natalie Garcia of counsel), for appellants.
Robert A. Skoblar, Hackensack, New Jersey, for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the [*2]certified question answered in the affirmative.
In view of the Appellate Division's substitution of its discretion for that of the trial court, our review is limited (see Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031, 1032 [1984]; Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 225 [1984]; see also Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 745 [2000]). That narrow scope of review and the unique facts present here drive our determination of this case. We conclude that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in refusing to preclude plaintiff's proposed expert neurological testimony{**27 NY3d at 984} with respect to what is alleged to have been a neurological injury inasmuch as the subject matter of that testimony is within the competence of plaintiff's experts and is supported by medical literature.[FN*] As the Appellate Division noted, any defects in the opinions of plaintiff's experts or the foundation on which those opinions are based should go to the weight to be accorded that evidence by the trier of fact, not to its admissibility in the first instance.
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.