Bulvas v. Dubrowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bulvas v. Dubrowsky

277 A.D.2d 338, 716 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12197

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 338 (Bulvas v. Dubrowsky) 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

Bulvas v. Dubrowsky, 277 A.D.2d 338, 716 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated September 9, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the verdict was not based on legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review, as it was never raised in the trial court (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 145; Nelson v Times Sq. Stores Corp., 110 AD2d 691). In any event, the evidence provided the jury with a basis to rationally conclude that the defendant did not commit dental malpractice (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49-50; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Altman v Alpha Obstetrics & Gynecology, 255 AD2d 276, 277). The plaintiffs’ contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is also without merit, as the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, 239 AD2d 339; Corcoran v People's Ambulette Serv., 237 AD2d 402, 403; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, 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 dental malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated September 9, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the verdict was not based on legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review, as it was never raised in the trial court (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 145; Nelson v Times Sq. Stores Corp., 110 AD2d 691). In any event, the evidence provided the jury with a basis to rationally conclude that the defendant did not commit dental malpractice (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49-50; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Altman v Alpha Obstetrics & Gynecology, 255 AD2d 276, 277). The plaintiffs’ contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is also without merit, as the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, 239 AD2d 339; Corcoran v People's Ambulette Serv., 237 AD2d 402, 403; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 338, 716 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulvas-v-dubrowsky-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack