Isabelis M. v. Mudge

119 A.D.3d 440, 988 N.Y.S.2d 492
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 3, 2014
Docket350259/08 12931A 12931
StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.3d 440 (Isabelis M. v. Mudge) 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
Isabelis M. v. Mudge, 119 A.D.3d 440, 988 N.Y.S.2d 492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John J. Barone, J.), entered October 19, 2012, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 5, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In this action alleging medical malpractice in connection with the prenatal care provided to plaintiff by defendant doctor, we perceive no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict crediting the testimony of defendant doctor as well as that of defendants’ expert obstetrician. Defendant doctor and her expert determined that ordering urinalysis testing, rather than a urine culture, was appropriate under the circumstances and was the proper standard of care during plaintiffs treatment. Although plaintiffs expert disagreed, the weight to be accorded the conflicting expert testimony is within the province of the jury (see Torricelli v Pisacano, 9 AD3d 291 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 612 [2004]).

The testimony of defendants’ expert neonatologist was properly admitted and was not cumulative. Even assuming that it was error to permit this testimony, the error was harmless since the testimony was relevant to the issue of causation, an issue not reached by the jury since it found that defendants were not negligent (see Gilbert v Luvin, 286 AD2d 600 [1st Dept 2001]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Torricelli v. Pisacano
9 A.D.3d 291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Gilbert v. Luvin
286 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.D.3d 440, 988 N.Y.S.2d 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isabelis-m-v-mudge-nyappdiv-2014.