81 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
Areas of Practice
Medical Liability and Risk Management
Products Liability and Toxic Tort
Fordham University School of Law: JD: 1991
Pennsylvania State University: BA: 1984
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Daryl Paxson is a 1991 graduate of Fordham University School of Law where she was a member of the Fordham Law Review. Daryl, who is Appellate Counsel at HPM&B, joined the firm in 1999. Previously, she was a litigation associate at the national law firms of Lord, Day & Lord, Barrett Smith, and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.
She has broad experience representing corporate interests in mass tort and product liability litigation, as well as the defense of professional liability and white-collar criminal actions. Having briefed and argued numerous appeals, she currently devotes much of her practice to that specialty.
Three Cases Dismissed In Favor of HPM&B Clients
In September, HPM&B attorneys gained summary judgment dismissals in two high exposure cases that were venued in The Bronx and another summary judgment dismissal by the Appellate Division, Second Department in a Brooklyn case involving the continuous treatment doctrine.
$14 Million Judgment Reversed on Appeal
HPM&B's Appellate Practice Group achieved one of the most significant appellate victories in New York in 2007. In DeCrescenzo v. Gonzalez, __ A.D.2d __, 847 N.Y.S.2d 236 (2d Dep't 2007), a medical malpractice action involving a brain-damaged child, a Brooklyn judge entered a judgment totaling $14 million following a jury trial which was marked by inconsistent rulings and patent bias in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division held that defendants were deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the lower court's conduct, which included presenting the 4-year-old plaintiff with a box of candy in front of the jury and later giving each juror a gift when the trial broke for the holidays.
Appellate Practice Group Obtains Reversal Based on Plaintiff's Reliance on an Unqualified Medical Expert
Dan Ratner and Daryl Paxson of HPM&B's appellate practice group recently obtained a reversal and dismissal of a medical malpractice complaint, convincing the Appellate Division, Second Department that plaintiff's expert, in opposition to a summary judgment motion, failed to adequately demonstrate his credentials for offering an opinion as to a standard of care that was outside his area of specialization.
Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal Based On Untimely Notice Of Claim
The Appellate Division, Second Department has affirmed the dismissal of a medical malpractice action, holding that the Supreme Court, Westchester County properly denied plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve a late notice of claim against a municipal hospital. In Matter of Gentile v. Westchester Medical Center, 2011 NY Slip Op 06558 (2d Dep’t Sep. 20, 2011), sixty-three-year-old petitioner-appellant Robert Gentile, who suffered from congestive heart failure, diabetes, and amputations, was admitted to respondent Westchester Medical Center for emergency heart surgery. His medical history included two heart attacks, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and amputated toes. He was admitted in grave condition to WMC for “acute coronary intervention.” After emergency heart surgery, plaintiff was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit in “critical condition.” During the next few weeks, Mr. Gentile was diagnosed with, and treated for, numerous life-threatening conditions stemming from his heart disease and over all poor health, including a tracheostomy to help with respiration. A few weeks later, a CAT scan indicated Mr. Gentile had suffered a left middle cerebral artery stroke. Over sixteen months after his discharge, appellant sought leave to file a late Notice of Claim against WMC and respondent Westchester County Health Care Corporation. Plaintiff alleged that WMC’s failure to control his electrolytes and sodium levels during his nine-week admission caused him to suffer a stroke.
State Claims Against HPM&B Client Dismissed under Federal Preemption Doctrine
Interpreting the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., a Westchester County judge has dismissed claims sounding in negligence and product liability following plaintiffs' decedent's death from injuries he sustained while undergoing a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (“MRI”) test.