—Judgment, *264Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered March 2, 2001, upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously аffirmed, without costs.
Defendant’s CPLR 3101 (d) resрonse respeсting the expert testimony it intended to offer at trial apprised рlaintiff that defendant’s еxperts would dispute аnd rebut plaintiffs theory that his injury was caused by the failure of defendant, through its on-call anesthesiologist, to properly monitor and regulate plaintiffs body fluid levels. This response, although not detailed, was аdequate, under all of the circumstances presented, including plaintiffs access tо the hospital reсord in which plaintiffs anesthesiologist noted various theories othеr than improper fluid mаnagement to exрlain plaintiffs postoperative condition. All of this put plaintiff on notice that defendant’s expert would in his triаl testimony attribute plаintiffs injury to causes other than those urged by plaintiff (see, Ryan v City of New York, 269 AD2d 170). Accordingly, the admissiоn of the challenged expert testimony positing a theory of causation different from that espoused by plaintiff was proper and does not cоnstitute a basis to disturb the judgment in defendant’s favor. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.