Piazza v. Dobri
Docket Index No. 805158/21|Appeal No. 6435|Case No. 2025-06365|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02474
- Docket numbers
- Index No805158/21Appeal No6435Case No2025-06365
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court's partial denial of defendants' summary judgment motion and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim. Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to diagnose Cushing's syndrome, but defendants' expert attested that care met the standard and there was no biochemical or pathological evidence of Cushing's or an ACTH-secreting tumor during defendants' treatment. Plaintiffs' expert did not meaningfully rebut defendants' causation evidence or address 2019 surgical pathology, so plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue on causation.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim for failure to diagnose Cushing's syndrome
- Whether plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact on proximate causation linking defendants' alleged failure to any injury
Court's Reasoning
Defendants presented an expert affidavit showing their care met the standard and that there was no biochemical or pathological evidence of Cushing's or an ACTH-secreting tumor during the period of their treatment. The expert relied on surgical pathology from June and October 2019 which did not show changes consistent with Cushing's, undermining causation. Plaintiffs' expert failed to meaningfully address those pathology findings or defendants' causation opinions, so plaintiffs did not create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Khurdayan v Kassir223 AD3d 590 (1st Dept 2024)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Lynne Piazza et al.
- Defendant
- Georgiana A. Dobri, M.D.
- Defendant
- Weill Cornell Neurological Surgery
- Judge
- John J. Kelly
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Supreme Court order entered
- 2025-08-26
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Entry of judgment
Clerk will enter judgment granting defendants' motion; parties should confirm the judgment is entered and review the docket for any administrative steps.
- 2
Consider motion for leave to appeal
If plaintiffs wish to continue, they should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and assess likelihood of acceptance.
- 3
Assess settlement or case closure
Defendants may move to close the case or seek recovery of costs; plaintiffs should consider whether to pursue any post-judgment relief or accept the dismissal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the lower court and dismissed the medical malpractice claim against the doctors, finding plaintiffs did not show that the doctors' care caused the alleged injuries.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiffs (Piazza and co-plaintiffs) lose their malpractice claim against Dr. Dobri and related defendants; the defendants win dismissal on summary judgment.
- Why did the court dismiss the case?
- Because defendants' expert showed there was no biochemical or pathological evidence of Cushing's syndrome during defendants' care, and plaintiffs' expert failed to refute those specific causation points.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The decision is by the Appellate Division; a further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals would require permission (leave) and acceptance by that court.
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
Piazza v Dobri - 2026 NY Slip Op 02474 Piazza v Dobri 2026 NY Slip Op 02474 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Lynne Piazza et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Georgiana A. Dobri, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Weill Cornell Neurological Surgery, Defendant. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Index No. 805158/21|Appeal No. 6435|Case No. 2025-06365| Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ. Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Charles Franklin Hickerson IV of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Joshua Block of counsel), for respondents. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelly, J.), entered August 26, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied in part the motion of defendants-appellants for summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. The court should have granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim in its entirety. The crux of plaintiffs' claim is that defendants failed to diagnose plaintiff with Cushing's syndrome. Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through their expert's affidavit, who averred that defendants' treatment of plaintiff was within the standard of care and that none of plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by the care that defendants provided to plaintiff. The expert opined that defendants never had the biochemical evidence available to support a Cushing's syndrome diagnosis. With respect to proximate causation in particular, defendants' expert noted that during defendant's treatment of plaintiff there was no evidence of an adrenal tumor secreting excess cortisol or a tumor elsewhere secreting excess adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). The expert concluded that plaintiff did not have Cushing's, as confirmed by surgical pathology of plaintiff's pituitary gland in June and October 2019. The pathology results did not reveal Crookes hyaline change in June 2019, which defendants' expert concluded showed that plaintiff did not have Cushing's. In opposition to defendants' prima facie showing, plaintiffs' expert failed to meaningfully address defendants' expert's opinions regarding causation ( see Khurdayan v Kassir , 223 AD3d 590, 591 [1st Dept 2024]). Plaintiffs' expert opined that plaintiff had a tumor or adenoma which grew or spread during the time in which they allege that defendant doctor failed to make a Cushing's diagnosis. Although plaintiffs' expert opined that plaintiff had Cushing's, plaintiffs' expert failed to meaningfully address the 2019 pathology results. In particular, the expert did not address the pathology results vis-À-vis the absence of adenomas or ACTH-producing tumors in the pituitary gland. In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to causation. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026