Caleb v. Toporovsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caleb v. Toporovsky

264 A.D.2d 704, 695 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 704 (Caleb v. Toporovsky) 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

Caleb v. Toporovsky, 264 A.D.2d 704, 695 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant N. Alan Toporovsky appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 9, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict finding that he committed dental malpractice, that his malpractice was a proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff Dolores B. Caleb, and awarding her $10,000 in damages, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict as to damages and for a new trial on that issue unless he stipulated to increase the verdict as to damages [705]*705awarded, to the plaintiff Dolores B. Caleb from $10,000 to $75,000, and denied his cross motion to set aside the verdict and to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, sufficient evidence was adduced from which the jury could rationally conclude that the appellant departed from good and accepted medical practice, and that his departure was a substantial factor in producing the respondent’s injuries.

Finally, we find the increased verdict of $75,000 to be reasonable compensation for the respondent’s injuries. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendant N. Alan Toporovsky appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 9, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict finding that he committed dental malpractice, that his malpractice was a proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff Dolores B. Caleb, and awarding her $10,000 in damages, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict as to damages and for a new trial on that issue unless he stipulated to increase the verdict as to damages [705]*705awarded, to the plaintiff Dolores B. Caleb from $10,000 to $75,000, and denied his cross motion to set aside the verdict and to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, sufficient evidence was adduced from which the jury could rationally conclude that the appellant departed from good and accepted medical practice, and that his departure was a substantial factor in producing the respondent’s injuries.

Finally, we find the increased verdict of $75,000 to be reasonable compensation for the respondent’s injuries. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 704, 695 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caleb-v-toporovsky-nyappdiv-1999.