What did the court decide?

The appeals court affirmed the lower court's denial of defendants' summary judgment motion, so the malpractice case will continue toward trial or further pretrial proceedings.

Who is affected by this decision?

The plaintiffs (Meg and Brian Bray) and the defendants (Dr. Popat and Delaware Medical Group) are affected because factual disputes remain and the lawsuit proceeds.

Why was summary judgment denied?

Because plaintiffs produced an expert whose qualifications and opinion created a genuine factual dispute about whether the defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care, preventing resolution without a trial.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes; the defendants could seek leave to appeal to New York's highest court, but doing so would require meeting the appellate court's standards for further review.

Bray v. Popat

Docket 190 CA 25-00220

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02536
Docket: 190 CA 25-00220

Appeal from an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action in Supreme Court, Erie County.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court order denying summary judgment to defendants Dr. Saurin Popat and Delaware Medical Group in a medical malpractice suit brought by Meg and Brian Bray. The court found defendants initially showed they met the standard of care, but plaintiffs submitted an expert affirmation—establishing medical licensure and board certification in endocrine surgery—that raised triable issues as to whether Dr. Popat's assessment, diagnosis, and treatment fell below the accepted standard. Because the parties’ experts conflicted, summary judgment was inappropriate and the case must proceed.

Issues Decided

Whether defendants met their initial burden on summary judgment by showing they did not deviate from the accepted medical standard of care.
Whether plaintiffs' anonymous expert was qualified to render opinions on the standard of care.
Whether plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment.

Court's Reasoning

Defendants satisfied their initial summary judgment burden by presenting evidence that they adhered to the accepted standard of care. Plaintiffs countered with an expert affirmation establishing the expert's licensure and board certification in endocrine surgery, which the court found sufficient to show the expert was qualified. The expert's opinion that Dr. Popat's assessment and treatment fell below the standard created a factual dispute — a classic conflict between experts — so summary judgment was improper.

Authorities Cited

Thompson v Hall191 AD3d 1265 (4th Dept 2021)
Nowelle B. v Hamilton Medical, Inc.177 AD3d 1256 (4th Dept 2019)
Hilbrecht v Greco189 AD3d 2073 (4th Dept 2020)

Parties

Plaintiff: Meg Bray
Plaintiff: Brian Bray
Defendant: Saurin Popat, M.D.
Defendant: Delaware Medical Group, P.C.
Judge: Emilio Colaiacovo
Judge: Ann Dillon Flynn
Judge: Curran, J.P.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-24
Order entered (denial below): 2025-01-24

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare for trial litigation
Both sides should continue fact discovery, expert depositions, and trial preparation because factual disputes remain and the case is not resolved on summary judgment.
2
Depute expert testimony
Defendants should consider deposing plaintiffs' expert and strengthening their own expert evidence to clarify or rebut the disputed standard-of-care issues.
3
Consider interlocutory appeal
Defendants may consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals if there is a viable legal question warranting further review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's denial of defendants' summary judgment motion, so the malpractice case will continue toward trial or further pretrial proceedings.
Who is affected by this decision?: The plaintiffs (Meg and Brian Bray) and the defendants (Dr. Popat and Delaware Medical Group) are affected because factual disputes remain and the lawsuit proceeds.
Why was summary judgment denied?: Because plaintiffs produced an expert whose qualifications and opinion created a genuine factual dispute about whether the defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care, preventing resolution without a trial.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes; the defendants could seek leave to appeal to New York's highest court, but doing so would require meeting the appellate court's standards for further review.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Bray v Popat - 2026 NY Slip Op 02536

Bray v Popat

2026 NY Slip Op 02536

April 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

MEG BRAY AND BRIAN BRAY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

SAURIN POPAT, M.D., DELAWARE MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on April 24, 2026

190 CA 25-00220

Present: Curran, J.P., Montour, Smith, Ogden, And Delconte, JJ.

ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (J. MARK GRUBER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN A. COLLINS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Emilio Colaiacovo, J.), entered January 24, 2025, in a medical malpractice action. The order denied the motion of defendants Saurin Popat, M.D., and Delaware Medical Group, P.C., for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, Saurin Popat, M.D. and Delaware Medical Group, P.C. (defendants) appeal from an order that denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the "Amended/Supplemental" complaint against them. We affirm.

Contrary to defendants' contention, we conclude that, although they met their initial burden on their motion by establishing that they did not deviate from the accepted standard of care, plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact with respect to that element sufficient to defeat the motion (
see generally Thompson v Hall
, 191 AD3d 1265, 1267 [4th Dept 2021]). With respect to plaintiffs' opposition papers, we initially reject defendants' contention that plaintiffs' expert was unqualified to render an opinion regarding the issues in this case. Plaintiffs' anonymous expert averred in their expert affirmation that they are a physician, duly licensed to practice medicine, and that they are board certified by the American Board of Surgery with a clinical focus in endocrine surgery. The affirmation established that "[t]he specialized skills of [the] expert as demonstrated through [their] board certifications, taken together with the nature of the medical subject matter of th[e] action, are sufficient to support the inference that [their] opinion regarding [the] treatment [at issue] was reliable" (
Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med.
,
Inc.
, 177 AD3d 1256, 1258 [4th Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted];
see Hilbrecht v Greco
, 189 AD3d 2073, 2074 [4th Dept 2020]). Plaintiffs' expert opined in their affirmation, inter alia, that Popat's assessment, diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff Meg Bray's condition fell below the accepted standard of care, thus presenting a "classic battle of the experts" that precludes summary judgment (
Hilbrecht
, 189 AD3d at 2074 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn