Dunn v. Levinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunn v. Levinson

121 A.D.2d 596, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58579

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Weiner, J.), entered January 2, 1985, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the court’s charge to the jury was in all respects proper. The court not only charged the appropriate propositions of law, but also carefully outlined the contentions of the parties (see generally, Green v Downs, 27 NY2d 205, 208-209; PJI 1:6). Furthermore, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof on the essential element of causation (see, Minardo v Estate of Mussio, 116 AD2d 701; Mertsaris v 73rd Corp., 105 AD2d 67) with respect to those theories of liability concerning which he [597] requested a more detailed charge. We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Weiner, J.), entered January 2, 1985, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the court’s charge to the jury was in all respects proper. The court not only charged the appropriate propositions of law, but also carefully outlined the contentions of the parties (see generally, Green v Downs, 27 NY2d 205, 208-209; PJI 1:6). Furthermore, we find that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof on the essential element of causation (see, Minardo v Estate of Mussio, 116 AD2d 701; Mertsaris v 73rd Corp., 105 AD2d 67) with respect to those theories of liability concerning which he [597] requested a more detailed charge. We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Dunn v. Levinson, 121 A.D.2d 596, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

121 A.D.2d 596 (Dunn v. Levinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related