Johnson v. Farr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Farr

268 A.D.2d 560, 702 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 915

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 560 (Johnson v. Farr) 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

Johnson v. Farr, 268 A.D.2d 560, 702 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based upon medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered September 23, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and upon the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The facts adduced at trial were insufficient to warrant a jury charge on the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. The nature of the expert, testimony did not give rise to an inference of negligence based upon the mere occurrence of the adverse event at issue (see, Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489; Abbott v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 141 AD2d 589). Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request for a res ipso loquitur charge. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein 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 personal injuries, etc., based upon medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered September 23, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and upon the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The facts adduced at trial were insufficient to warrant a jury charge on the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. The nature of the expert, testimony did not give rise to an inference of negligence based upon the mere occurrence of the adverse event at issue (see, Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489; Abbott v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 141 AD2d 589). Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request for a res ipso loquitur charge. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 560, 702 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-farr-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack