Haftel v. Kestler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haftel v. Kestler

53 A.D.2d 572, 384 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13199

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

DecidedJune 22, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 572 (Haftel v. Kestler) 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

Haftel v. Kestler, 53 A.D.2d 572, 384 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 22, 1976, in favor of defendants, after a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In this action for medical malpractice and breach of warranty the jury resolved all disputed factual issues in favor of defendants. Since it does not plainly appear "that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendants] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence,” we may not set it aside. (Marton v McCasland, 16 AD2d 781, 782.) We have examined the alleged errors relating to the court’s charge and find them to be without substantial merit. Moreover, we significantly note the absence of any exceptions thereto below. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Capozzoli and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 22, 1976, in favor of defendants, after a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In this action for medical malpractice and breach of warranty the jury resolved all disputed factual issues in favor of defendants. Since it does not plainly appear "that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendants] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence,” we may not set it aside. (Marton v McCasland, 16 AD2d 781, 782.) We have examined the alleged errors relating to the court’s charge and find them to be without substantial merit. Moreover, we significantly note the absence of any exceptions thereto below. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Capozzoli and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 572, 384 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haftel-v-kestler-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack