Dwyer v. Schoeneck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dwyer v. Schoeneck

133 A.D.2d 523, 519 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49999

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 523 (Dwyer v. Schoeneck) 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

Dwyer v. Schoeneck, 133 A.D.2d 523, 519 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court did not err when it instructed the jury that it could draw no inference from the pathology report concerning the condition of the parametrial tissue. There was no reference in the report to that structure and no evidence that any portion of it had been sent to the pathologist or was examined by him.

Plaintiff contends that defendant, in his examination before trial, admitted that there is a presumption that a tissue is normal if it is not referred to in the pathology report. Defendant’s statement, however, pertained only to a tissue listed in the body of a report as having been examined, but not discussed in the final diagnosis.

We have examined the record and we find no improper restriction of plaintiff’s right to cross-examination. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. —medical malpractice.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court did not err when it instructed the jury that it could draw no inference from the pathology report concerning the condition of the parametrial tissue. There was no reference in the report to that structure and no evidence that any portion of it had been sent to the pathologist or was examined by him.

Plaintiff contends that defendant, in his examination before trial, admitted that there is a presumption that a tissue is normal if it is not referred to in the pathology report. Defendant’s statement, however, pertained only to a tissue listed in the body of a report as having been examined, but not discussed in the final diagnosis.

We have examined the record and we find no improper restriction of plaintiff’s right to cross-examination. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. —medical malpractice.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 523, 519 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwyer-v-schoeneck-nyappdiv-1987.