Cicalese v. Caruana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cicalese v. Caruana

250 A.D.2d 568, 672 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4876

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 568 (Cicalese v. Caruana) 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

Cicalese v. Caruana, 250 A.D.2d 568, 672 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [569]*569medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), entered November 21, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict and the plaintiffs’ stipulation to reduce the verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Enrico Cicalese and against him in the principal sum of $975,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff Enrico Cicalese. We find, however, that the verdict whs against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s conclusion that the defendant’s departure from good and accepted medical practice was a proximate cause of Mr. .Cicalese’s injuries could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. The testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding causation was conclusory, and demonstrated “[o]nly the barest possible causal connection” between the malpractice and Mr. Cicalese’s injuries, in contrast to the strong case presented by the defendant (Hunter v Szabo, 117 AD2d 778, 780).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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 [569]*569medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), entered November 21, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict and the plaintiffs’ stipulation to reduce the verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Enrico Cicalese and against him in the principal sum of $975,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff Enrico Cicalese. We find, however, that the verdict whs against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s conclusion that the defendant’s departure from good and accepted medical practice was a proximate cause of Mr. .Cicalese’s injuries could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. The testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding causation was conclusory, and demonstrated “[o]nly the barest possible causal connection” between the malpractice and Mr. Cicalese’s injuries, in contrast to the strong case presented by the defendant (Hunter v Szabo, 117 AD2d 778, 780).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 568, 672 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicalese-v-caruana-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack