Ayoung v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ayoung v. Epstein

177 A.D.2d 460, 576 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18034

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 460 (Ayoung v. Epstein) 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

Ayoung v. Epstein, 177 A.D.2d 460, 576 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered December 20, 1990, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $1,000,282.50, inclusive of interest and costs, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record contains sufficient evidence for a factual finding that defendant’s malpractice was a substantial and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s medical expert testified that the removal of excessive temporal lobe during the operation, in an attempt to get at the source of several recurring seizures, was medically unnecessary and caused plaintiff to develop hemiplegia and become permanently disabled. Defendant’s medical witnesses’ contrary opinion as to the cause of plaintiff’s injuries is not a ground for setting aside the verdict, either as a matter of law or as against the weight of the evidence (see, Furia v Mellucci, 163 AD2d 88, 89, lv denied 77 NY2d 803). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered December 20, 1990, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $1,000,282.50, inclusive of interest and costs, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record contains sufficient evidence for a factual finding that defendant’s malpractice was a substantial and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s medical expert testified that the removal of excessive temporal lobe during the operation, in an attempt to get at the source of several recurring seizures, was medically unnecessary and caused plaintiff to develop hemiplegia and become permanently disabled. Defendant’s medical witnesses’ contrary opinion as to the cause of plaintiff’s injuries is not a ground for setting aside the verdict, either as a matter of law or as against the weight of the evidence (see, Furia v Mellucci, 163 AD2d 88, 89, lv denied 77 NY2d 803). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 460, 576 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayoung-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack