Breiterman v. Kern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breiterman v. Kern

226 A.D.2d 181, 641 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3765

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

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 181 (Breiterman v. Kern) 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

Breiterman v. Kern, 226 A.D.2d 181, 641 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered May 12, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $172,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that there existed a rational and valid line of reasoning by which the jury could find that defendant committed dental malpractice and that [182]*182such malpractice constituted a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries when he installed restorations in plaintiff § upper and lower arch without sufficient retentive support. The parties’ expert testimony concerning the acceptable professional standard of care owed to plaintiff and that which was provided by defendant created a factual issue, which was resolved by the jury, and there is no basis to disturb its findings (see, Bellas v Kurpis, 182 AD2d 542). We find the jury’s damages award to constitute reasonable compensation, considering the nature and duration of plaintiffs discomfort caused by defendant’s malpractice (CPLR 5501 [c]).

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered May 12, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $172,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that there existed a rational and valid line of reasoning by which the jury could find that defendant committed dental malpractice and that [182]*182such malpractice constituted a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries when he installed restorations in plaintiff § upper and lower arch without sufficient retentive support. The parties’ expert testimony concerning the acceptable professional standard of care owed to plaintiff and that which was provided by defendant created a factual issue, which was resolved by the jury, and there is no basis to disturb its findings (see, Bellas v Kurpis, 182 AD2d 542). We find the jury’s damages award to constitute reasonable compensation, considering the nature and duration of plaintiffs discomfort caused by defendant’s malpractice (CPLR 5501 [c]).

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 181, 641 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breiterman-v-kern-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack