Although defendant contends that he informed plaintiff of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the surgery she was to undergo, plaintiff's affidavit and deposition testimony, wherein she denies that defendant provided such information, suffice to raise triable issues as to whether information necessary to the validity of her consent to the surgery was timely imparted (see,Josephson v. The Crane Club, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 359, 694 N.Y.S.2d 376). Contrary to defendant's argument, plaintiff's testimony that she would not have consented to the surgery had she been fully informed of the risks involved, without more, is sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether a reasonably prudent person, fully informed, would have refused the operation (Osorio v. Brauner, 242 A.D.2d 511, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 813).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.