Brown v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Brown v. City of New York

393 N.E.2d 486, 47 N.Y.2d 927, 419 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2179

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 393 N.E.2d 486 (Brown v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. City of New York, 393 N.E.2d 486, 47 N.Y.2d 927, 419 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2179 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Parvi v City of Kingston, 41 NY2d 553), we agree with the Appellate Division that she made out a prima facie case. Without more, the record reveals that the testimony of plaintiffs medical expert provided a basis for a finding that defendant’s doctors deviated from accepted medical practice when they failed to further explore the nature of the orange pills plaintiff disclosed she had taken so that they might eliminate the possibility that her symptoms were drug-induced rather than systemic, and that therefore surgery was contraindicated.

As to the cross appeal, the plaintiff having stipulated to the "reduction” of damages, her appeal does not lie and, accordingly, is dismissed (Dudley v Perkins, 235 NY 448).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, and plaintiffs cross appeal dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Parvi v City of Kingston, 41 NY2d 553), we agree with the Appellate Division that she made out a prima facie case. Without more, the record reveals that the testimony of plaintiffs medical expert provided a basis for a finding that defendant’s doctors deviated from accepted medical practice when they failed to further explore the nature of the orange pills plaintiff disclosed she had taken so that they might eliminate the possibility that her symptoms were drug-induced rather than systemic, and that therefore surgery was contraindicated.

As to the cross appeal, the plaintiff having stipulated to the "reduction” of damages, her appeal does not lie and, accordingly, is dismissed (Dudley v Perkins, 235 NY 448).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, and plaintiffs cross appeal dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 N.E.2d 486, 47 N.Y.2d 927, 419 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack