Koechlin v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koechlin v. Weintraub

27 A.D.3d 219, 809 N.Y.S.2d 452

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 219 (Koechlin v. Weintraub) 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

Koechlin v. Weintraub, 27 A.D.3d 219, 809 N.Y.S.2d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 20, 2004, upon jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[220]*220Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action for the alleged failure to properly diagnose and treat Mr. Koechlin’s lung condition. Since plaintiffs failed to object to the purported defect in the verdict sheet, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see Laboda v VJV Dev. Corp., 296 AD2d 441 [2002]). Were we to review this issue, we would find that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support the alternative theory of liability, and thus the point was properly not included on the verdict sheet (see Rossetti v Board of Educ. of Schalmont Cent. School Dist., 277 AD2d 668, 670-671 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 20, 2004, upon jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[220]*220Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action for the alleged failure to properly diagnose and treat Mr. Koechlin’s lung condition. Since plaintiffs failed to object to the purported defect in the verdict sheet, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see Laboda v VJV Dev. Corp., 296 AD2d 441 [2002]). Were we to review this issue, we would find that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support the alternative theory of liability, and thus the point was properly not included on the verdict sheet (see Rossetti v Board of Educ. of Schalmont Cent. School Dist., 277 AD2d 668, 670-671 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 219, 809 N.Y.S.2d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koechlin-v-weintraub-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack