Giugliano v. Giammarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giugliano v. Giammarino

37 A.D.3d 533, 829 N.Y.S.2d 685

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 533 (Giugliano v. Giammarino) 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

Giugliano v. Giammarino, 37 A.D.3d 533, 829 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fitts, J.), entered January 27, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants Anthony M. Giammarino, Richard Rubenstein, and Jong-Chu Jean, and against her, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The standard for reviewing whether a jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence is whether the evidence so preponderated in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Paolilli v Lynch, 32 AD3d 532 [2006]; Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, supra at 746; Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., supra at 605; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]). The divergent testimony of the parties and their medical experts presented issues of credibility to be resolved by the jury, which had the opportunity to observe and assess the witnesses and the evidence (see Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., supra). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and McCarthy, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fitts, J.), entered January 27, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants Anthony M. Giammarino, Richard Rubenstein, and Jong-Chu Jean, and against her, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The standard for reviewing whether a jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence is whether the evidence so preponderated in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Paolilli v Lynch, 32 AD3d 532 [2006]; Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, supra at 746; Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., supra at 605; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]). The divergent testimony of the parties and their medical experts presented issues of credibility to be resolved by the jury, which had the opportunity to observe and assess the witnesses and the evidence (see Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., supra). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 533, 829 N.Y.S.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giugliano-v-giammarino-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack