Fils v. Stanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fils v. Stanford

99 A.D.3d 756, 951 N.Y.2d 678

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 756 (Fils v. Stanford) 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

Fils v. Stanford, 99 A.D.3d 756, 951 N.Y.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

“A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Cherisol v Resnik, 85 AD3d 705 [2011]; see Palermo v Original California Taqueria, Inc., 72 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]). Here, the jury’s determination that the defendant did not depart from good and accepted medical practice by performing a surgical biopsy instead of a stereotactic biopsy was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial and, thus, it will not be disturbed (see Nelson v Schwartz, 90 AD3d 626 [2011]; Cherisol v Resnik, 85 AD3d at 705-706).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

“A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Cherisol v Resnik, 85 AD3d 705 [2011]; see Palermo v Original California Taqueria, Inc., 72 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]). Here, the jury’s determination that the defendant did not depart from good and accepted medical practice by performing a surgical biopsy instead of a stereotactic biopsy was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial and, thus, it will not be disturbed (see Nelson v Schwartz, 90 AD3d 626 [2011]; Cherisol v Resnik, 85 AD3d at 705-706).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 756, 951 N.Y.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fils-v-stanford-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack