The judgment is one of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's case. The action was for the recovery of damages due to defendant's alleged malpractice in operating upon plaintiff's left eye for the removal of a cataract. Plaintiff's proofs disclosed that the defendant only incompletely performed the operation, failed to remove the cataract and caused her injury; that the operation was interrupted and injury caused because she moved in the course thereof; that her movement was caused by pain; that the prevailing approved practice in defendant's profession was the preoperative administration of an anesthetic which would achieve complete anesthesia and render the patient insensible to pain during the operation, and that if an interrupting movement occurs it is due to "insufficient anesthesia". From plaintiff's evidence we think the jury could have found that defendant was guilty of malpractice in that he began the operation under an insufficient administration of the anesthetic or else before it had obtained sufficient effect. We consider that a prima facie case was established. Judgment reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ., concur.