A New York court has reversed a lower court's decision to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit involving a mother and her child. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on September 2, 2026, that the case should proceed, allowing the plaintiff, Nafeesh Mohamad, to continue seeking damages from the defendants, Michael Csompo and New York Presbyterian Queens Hospital.
This ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of thorough evaluations in medical malpractice cases. It emphasizes that defendants must provide clear evidence that they did not deviate from accepted medical practices, especially in cases involving childbirth where complications can arise.
The dispute in this case arose when Mohamad alleged that during the delivery of her child, Csompo, who worked at New York Presbyterian Queens Hospital, failed to adequately respond to complications. As a result, Mohamad claimed that her child suffered injuries. The case was filed under docket number 2024-09030.
The defendants, Csompo and the hospital, sought to have the case dismissed by filing a motion for summary judgment. They argued that there was no basis for the malpractice claim. However, the Supreme Court in Queens County granted their motion on July 22, 2024, dismissing the malpractice claim against them.
Following the dismissal, Mohamad appealed the decision. The Appellate Division reviewed the case and found that the defendants did not adequately demonstrate that they adhered to accepted medical practices during the delivery. The court stated, "The defendants' submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not depart from good and accepted medical practice or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff's child."
The opinion was delivered by Justices Lara J. Genovesi, Barry E. Warhit, Laurence L. Love, and Susan Quirk. They noted that the defendants' expert testimony was insufficient because it did not address conflicting evidence regarding the application of fundal pressure during labor. This pressure is a technique used during childbirth that can affect the delivery process.
The court emphasized that a defendant in a medical malpractice case must not only show that they followed accepted practices but also that any alleged malpractice did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The court found that the defendants did not meet this burden, stating, "Since the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice cause of action."
This ruling has important implications for medical malpractice cases in New York. It reinforces the standard that defendants must meet to dismiss such claims and ensures that plaintiffs have the opportunity to present their cases fully. The decision highlights the court's role in scrutinizing expert testimony and the necessity for clear evidence in medical disputes.
The outcome of this case may influence how similar medical malpractice cases are handled in the future. It serves as a reminder that healthcare providers must be diligent in their practices and prepared to defend their actions in court, especially in high-stakes situations like childbirth.
Looking ahead, the defendants may seek to appeal this ruling to a higher court, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings, allowing Mohamad to pursue her claims against Csompo and New York Presbyterian Queens Hospital.