Henkel v. Shields

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henkel v. Shields

204 A.D.2d 276, 614 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568

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

DecidedMay 2, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 276 (Henkel v. Shields) 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

Henkel v. Shields, 204 A.D.2d 276, 614 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered December 30, 1991, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, a reasonable juror could have determined that while the defendant was negligent in prescribing a [277]*277penicillin-type drug for the plaintiff when his records indicated that she was allergic to penicillin, his negligence was not a proximate cause of her psychiatric condition.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Taylor v Henderson, 175 AD2d 590; New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Detectives Endowment Assn., 174 AD2d 454). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, 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 (Floyd, J.), entered December 30, 1991, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, a reasonable juror could have determined that while the defendant was negligent in prescribing a [277]*277penicillin-type drug for the plaintiff when his records indicated that she was allergic to penicillin, his negligence was not a proximate cause of her psychiatric condition.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Taylor v Henderson, 175 AD2d 590; New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Detectives Endowment Assn., 174 AD2d 454). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 276, 614 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henkel-v-shields-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack