DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Rao Kamani, M.D. (“Kamani”) filed the instant motion pursuant to CPLR §2221(d) for leave to reargue his motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all the claims against him in the Amended Complaint. By Decision and Order dated December 21, 2018, the Court dismissed claims against CRNA (certified registered nurse anesthetist) Jane Doe. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants Kamani’s motion to reargue, and upon reargument, adheres to its prior determination, and Kamani’s motion for summary judgment is denied. The underlying facts are set forth in detail in the Court’s prior Decision and Order. To briefly summarize, Plaintiff Cynthia Furman (“Furman”) brought this action for medical malpractice arising out of a laproscopic sleeve gastrectomy performed on April 2, 2012, where Kamani was the supervising anesthesiologist. During the course of the surgery, a surgical bougie and an esophageal temperature probe were inadvertently stapled to Furman’s stomach, requiring further dissection and repair. In the prior Decision and Order, the Court concluded that Furman had “raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Kamani deviated from the accepted medical standard of care as the supervising anesthesiologist during the surgery, and whether that deviation was the proximate cause of Furman’s injuries.” (Decision and Order at p.13).Although not agreeing with the Court’s conclusion with respect to the accepted standard of medical care issue, Kamani’s motion for reargument is on the question of proximate cause only. Kamani argues that he produced prima facie evidence to support summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause by producing evidence that any alleged deviation was irrelevant to, and not the proximate cause of Furman’s injuries, and that Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Kamani asserts that the prior Decision and Order failed to “demonstrate a complete consideration of the proximate cause issue raised in his summary judgment motion.” (Affidavit of Karen Felter, Esq. at3).In particular, Kamani contends that his own affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment was sufficient to satisfy his burden. He opined that “the incidental trapping of the temperature probe, which was significantly smaller than the bougie, did not cause, materially alter or add to the complication of clipping the bougie.” On this motion to reargue, he claims that Plaintiff’s expert, Louis Flancbaum, M.D. (“Flancbaum”) failed to even address the proximate cause issue, and therefore, no triable issue of fact was raised. On that basis, Kamani argues that reargument under CPLR §2221(d) is warranted.“In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that the defendant ‘deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.’” Mazella v. Beals, 27 NY3d 694, 705 (2016), quoting James v. Wormuth, 21 NY3d 540, 545 (2013); Gallagher v. Cayuga Med. Ctr., 151 AD3d 1349 (3rd Dept. 2017). “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the defendant must establish ‘either that there was no departure from accepted standards of practice in the plaintiff’s treatment or that any such deviation did not injure the plaintiff.’” Butler v. Cayuga Med. Ctr., 158 AD3d 868, 869 (3rd Dept. 2018), quoting D’Orta v. Margaretville Mem. Hosp., 154 AD3d 1229, 1231 (3rd Dept. 2017).Under CPLR 2221(d) “[a] motion for leave to reargue…shall be based upon matters of fact of law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion.” See Greene Major Holdings, LLC v. Trailside At Hunter, LLC, 148 AD3d 1317 (3rd Dept. 2017); Matter of Town of Poestenkill v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation., 229 AD2d 650 (3rd Dept. 1996). “A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law, or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision…. The motion is not designed to afford an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted.” Mayer v. National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865 (3rd Dept. 1993) (internal citation and end citation omitted); Andrea v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 289 AD2d 1039 (4th Dept. 2001). Kamani claims that the prior Decision and Order did not address the proximate cause component of the medical malpractice claim. To the extent that the Court’s discussion or analysis of proximate was lacking or insufficiently detailed in the prior Decision and Order, the Court has determined to grant Kamani’s motion for reargument.Kamani’s affidavit alleges that the surgical bougie was intended to be present in the stomach when the staples were placed “to create a standard sized sleeve and staple around it.” (Kamani affidavit at
