Brunson v. Saint Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brunson v. Saint Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y.

2017 NY Slip Op 569, 146 A.D.3d 698, 46 N.Y.S.3d 64

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2017

Docket107010/09 2898A 2898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 569 (Brunson v. Saint Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y.) 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

Brunson v. Saint Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 569, 146 A.D.3d 698, 46 N.Y.S.3d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered October 14, 2014, awarding defendant judgment on a jury verdict, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 15, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial under CPLR 4404 (a), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The jury found that defendant hospital’s negligence in maintaining the sidewalk was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff’s argument of an inconsistent verdict is unpreserved (see Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]). In any event, this case does not present a situation where the questions of negligence and proximate cause are inextricably interwoven (see KBL, LLP v Community Counseling & Mediation Servs., 123 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2014]), and the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; White v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 297, 297-298 [1st Dept 2007]). While plaintiff claimed that she tripped on a hole in the sidewalk, the emergency room nurse noted in the hospital record that based on what plaintiff told her, someone had bumped into plaintiff while she was bending over to unlock her bike. Further, the nurse’s notation is consistent with the *699 testimony of both plaintiff’s and defendant’s experts that the pattern of the fractures in plaintiff’s wrist indicated that she fell forward with her hands outstretched, as opposed to the side of her hand striking the ground, as well as plaintiff’s admission that she sustained an abrasion in her right knee. The jury’s resolution of other conflicting evidence and credibility determinations are entitled to deference (see Sulay L. v New York City Tr. Auth., 128 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2015]; Manne v Museum of Modern Art, 39 AD3d 368 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kap-nick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered October 14, 2014, awarding defendant judgment on a jury verdict, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 15, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial under CPLR 4404 (a), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The jury found that defendant hospital’s negligence in maintaining the sidewalk was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff’s argument of an inconsistent verdict is unpreserved (see Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]). In any event, this case does not present a situation where the questions of negligence and proximate cause are inextricably interwoven (see KBL, LLP v Community Counseling & Mediation Servs., 123 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2014]), and the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; White v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 297, 297-298 [1st Dept 2007]). While plaintiff claimed that she tripped on a hole in the sidewalk, the emergency room nurse noted in the hospital record that based on what plaintiff told her, someone had bumped into plaintiff while she was bending over to unlock her bike. Further, the nurse’s notation is consistent with the *699 testimony of both plaintiff’s and defendant’s experts that the pattern of the fractures in plaintiff’s wrist indicated that she fell forward with her hands outstretched, as opposed to the side of her hand striking the ground, as well as plaintiff’s admission that she sustained an abrasion in her right knee. The jury’s resolution of other conflicting evidence and credibility determinations are entitled to deference (see Sulay L. v New York City Tr. Auth., 128 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2015]; Manne v Museum of Modern Art, 39 AD3d 368 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kap-nick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 569, 146 A.D.3d 698, 46 N.Y.S.3d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunson-v-saint-vincents-catholic-med-ctrs-of-ny-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack