Opinion
October 18, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.
The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion when it precluded the plaintiff's expert from testifying as to the standard of care applicable to the treatment of age related macular degeneration by laser photo-coagulation, including the informed consent to be obtained from a patient before such treatment is administered. The plaintiff's expert, an ophthalmologist, testified that he was familiar with the standard of care utilized in laser surgery although he himself had never performed the procedure. Under those circumstances the court should have allowed the testimony (see, Kwasny v. Feinberg, 157 A.D.2d 396, 400; Keane v. Sloane-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 96 A.D.2d 505). The expert's lack of personal experience in performing laser photo-coagulation was a factor to be evaluated by the jury and went to the weight to be given his testimony, and not its admissibility (see, Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 N.Y.2d 410; Kwasny v. Feinberg, supra). By curtailing this expert's testimony the trial court prevented the plaintiff from eliciting the expert testimony necessary to establish a prima facie case that the defendant had deviated from the standard practice and that the defendant failed to secure the plaintiff's informed consent (see, Keane v Sloane-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, supra).
In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiff's other contentions. Thompson, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.