Brenner v. Stivelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brenner v. Stivelman

109 A.D.2d 812, 486 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47319

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 812 (Brenner v. Stivelman) 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

Brenner v. Stivelman, 109 A.D.2d 812, 486 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated May 30, 1984, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict and for a new trial.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion denied, jury verdict reinstated, and matter remitted to Trial Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment.

The trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict and ordering a new trial. Contrary to its finding, the evidence did [813]*813present questions of fact as to the appellant’s negligence. It cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. (See, Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643.) Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated May 30, 1984, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict and for a new trial.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion denied, jury verdict reinstated, and matter remitted to Trial Term for the entry of an appropriate judgment.

The trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict and ordering a new trial. Contrary to its finding, the evidence did [813]*813present questions of fact as to the appellant’s negligence. It cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. (See, Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643.) Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 812, 486 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brenner-v-stivelman-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack