Kane v. Zade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kane v. Zade

63 A.D.2d 993

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

DecidedJune 14, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 993 (Kane v. Zade) 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

Kane v. Zade, 63 A.D.2d 993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 25, 1977 in favor of defendant Dr. Aziz B. Zade and against them, upon a jury verdict and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 22, 1977, which denied their motion to set aside the verdict. Appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements (Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. After thoroughly examining the transcript of the trial, in particular the statements made by defendant Zade and his counsel, which plaintiffs contend prejudiced them severely in the eyes of the jurors, it is our opinion that the plaintiffs received a fair and proper trial. These statements, which are the basis of the plaintiffs’ appeal, were not prejudicial. It would appear that the jurors reached their verdict after due and proper consideration of the evidence presented to them. In any case, plaintiffs’ failure to move for a mistrial on the ground which they now claim constituted prejudicial and reversible error amounted to a waiver of this objection (see Reilly v Wright, 55 AD2d 544; Dunne v Lemberg, 54 AD2d 955, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 809; Schein v Chest Serv. Co., 38 AD2d 929). Martuscello, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 25, 1977 in favor of defendant Dr. Aziz B. Zade and against them, upon a jury verdict and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 22, 1977, which denied their motion to set aside the verdict. Appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements (Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. After thoroughly examining the transcript of the trial, in particular the statements made by defendant Zade and his counsel, which plaintiffs contend prejudiced them severely in the eyes of the jurors, it is our opinion that the plaintiffs received a fair and proper trial. These statements, which are the basis of the plaintiffs’ appeal, were not prejudicial. It would appear that the jurors reached their verdict after due and proper consideration of the evidence presented to them. In any case, plaintiffs’ failure to move for a mistrial on the ground which they now claim constituted prejudicial and reversible error amounted to a waiver of this objection (see Reilly v Wright, 55 AD2d 544; Dunne v Lemberg, 54 AD2d 955, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 809; Schein v Chest Serv. Co., 38 AD2d 929). Martuscello, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-zade-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack