Alvarez v. Beth Abraham Health Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvarez v. Beth Abraham Health Services

101 A.D.3d 647, 955 N.Y.2d 872

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 647 (Alvarez v. Beth Abraham Health Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvarez v. Beth Abraham Health Services, 101 A.D.3d 647, 955 N.Y.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants failed to preserve their argument that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent as to liability and culpable conduct, as they failed to raise the argument before the jury was discharged (see Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]; Arrieta v Shams Waterproofing, Inc., 76 AD3d 495, 496 [1st Dept 2010]). In any event, the jury’s verdict was consistent and can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence (see Martinez v New York City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 174, 175 [1st Dept 2007]). Further, the court’s interrogatory regarding “the skin care provided to the plaintiff’ was unambiguous and consistent with the charge, evidence and applicable law (compare Plunkett v Emergency Med. Serv. of N.Y. City, 234 AD2d 162, 163 [1st Dept 1996], with Rodriguez v Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 44 AD3d 216, 223 [1st Dept 2007]).

We find the jury’s award for past pain and suffering appropriate. Given plaintiffs relatively young age, and in light of the evidence that his ulcer may reopen in the future, we decline to disturb the jury’s award for future pain and suffering. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Defendants failed to preserve their argument that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent as to liability and culpable conduct, as they failed to raise the argument before the jury was discharged (see Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]; Arrieta v Shams Waterproofing, Inc., 76 AD3d 495, 496 [1st Dept 2010]). In any event, the jury’s verdict was consistent and can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence (see Martinez v New York City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 174, 175 [1st Dept 2007]). Further, the court’s interrogatory regarding “the skin care provided to the plaintiff’ was unambiguous and consistent with the charge, evidence and applicable law (compare Plunkett v Emergency Med. Serv. of N.Y. City, 234 AD2d 162, 163 [1st Dept 1996], with Rodriguez v Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 44 AD3d 216, 223 [1st Dept 2007]).

We find the jury’s award for past pain and suffering appropriate. Given plaintiffs relatively young age, and in light of the evidence that his ulcer may reopen in the future, we decline to disturb the jury’s award for future pain and suffering. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 647, 955 N.Y.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-beth-abraham-health-services-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack