De Las Nueces v. Long Island College Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Las Nueces v. Long Island College Hospital

202 A.D.2d 329, 609 N.Y.S.2d 592

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 329 (De Las Nueces v. Long Island College Hospital) 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

De Las Nueces v. Long Island College Hospital, 202 A.D.2d 329, 609 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Kings County (Leonard Scholnick, J.), rendered December 2, 1991, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor against defendant hospital, and which reduced the award from $600,000 for pain and suffering to $440,000, upon plaintiff’s stipulation in lieu of a new trial on damages, and let stand $10,000 for past medical damages for a total of $462,857.50 inclusive of interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant hospital’s contention, a review of the [330]*330evidence demonstrates that the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499). There exists a rational basis for the jury’s findings of negligence on the part of defendant’s agent in the administration of an injection to plaintiff’s left buttock proximately causing her permanent injuries. While the parties’ respective medical experts differed concerning the nature and cause of plaintiff’s injuries, the matter was properly left to the jury (Furia v Mellucci, 163 AD2d 88, lv denied 77 NY2d 803; Yalkut v City of New York, 162 AD2d 185, 188).

In conclusion, we find that the award of damages by the jury, as reduced by the court, does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation in the circumstances both in terms of the claim of excessiveness and that of inadequacy. (CPLR 5501 [c].) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Kings County (Leonard Scholnick, J.), rendered December 2, 1991, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor against defendant hospital, and which reduced the award from $600,000 for pain and suffering to $440,000, upon plaintiff’s stipulation in lieu of a new trial on damages, and let stand $10,000 for past medical damages for a total of $462,857.50 inclusive of interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant hospital’s contention, a review of the [330]*330evidence demonstrates that the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499). There exists a rational basis for the jury’s findings of negligence on the part of defendant’s agent in the administration of an injection to plaintiff’s left buttock proximately causing her permanent injuries. While the parties’ respective medical experts differed concerning the nature and cause of plaintiff’s injuries, the matter was properly left to the jury (Furia v Mellucci, 163 AD2d 88, lv denied 77 NY2d 803; Yalkut v City of New York, 162 AD2d 185, 188).

In conclusion, we find that the award of damages by the jury, as reduced by the court, does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation in the circumstances both in terms of the claim of excessiveness and that of inadequacy. (CPLR 5501 [c].) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 329, 609 N.Y.S.2d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-las-nueces-v-long-island-college-hospital-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack