Barbarito v. Western Queens Community Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barbarito v. Western Queens Community Hospital

271 A.D.2d 627, 707 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4499

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 627 (Barbarito v. Western Queens Community Hospital) 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

Barbarito v. Western Queens Community Hospital, 271 A.D.2d 627, 707 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Nabil Megally and Panagiotis A. Manolas appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered February 18, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability and the parties’ stipulation as to damages, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nabil Megally in the principal sum of $240,000 and against the defendant Panagiotis A. Manolas in the principal sum of $120,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“A medical malpractice cause of action may be based on allegations that a physician negligently gave advice to his patient as to what course of treatment to pursue” (Bienz v Central Suffolk Hosp., 163 AD2d 269, 270). According due deference to the jury’s determination, which was based upon its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, as well as to weigh the conflicting testimony of the parties and their respective experts, it cannot be said that the evidence so preponderated in favor of the appellants that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on the issue of liability based upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Arpino v Jovin C. Lombardo, P. C., 215 AD2d 614, 615; Jones v Schockett, 109 AD2d 821, 822). Thus, the jury’s determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group, 260 AD2d 463; Flowers v Southampton Hosp., 215 AD2d 723; Arpino v Jovin C. Lombardo, P. C., supra, at 615).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Nabil Megally and Panagiotis A. Manolas appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered February 18, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability and the parties’ stipulation as to damages, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nabil Megally in the principal sum of $240,000 and against the defendant Panagiotis A. Manolas in the principal sum of $120,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“A medical malpractice cause of action may be based on allegations that a physician negligently gave advice to his patient as to what course of treatment to pursue” (Bienz v Central Suffolk Hosp., 163 AD2d 269, 270). According due deference to the jury’s determination, which was based upon its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, as well as to weigh the conflicting testimony of the parties and their respective experts, it cannot be said that the evidence so preponderated in favor of the appellants that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on the issue of liability based upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Arpino v Jovin C. Lombardo, P. C., 215 AD2d 614, 615; Jones v Schockett, 109 AD2d 821, 822). Thus, the jury’s determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group, 260 AD2d 463; Flowers v Southampton Hosp., 215 AD2d 723; Arpino v Jovin C. Lombardo, P. C., supra, at 615).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 627, 707 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbarito-v-western-queens-community-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack