Lechase v. Lamar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lechase v. Lamar

273 A.D.2d 888, 710 N.Y.S.2d 290

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

DecidedJune 16, 2000

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 888 (Lechase v. Lamar) 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

Lechase v. Lamar, 273 A.D.2d 888, 710 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendants’ contention that Supreme Court erred in this action for dental malpractice in including only one theory of negligence in the verdict sheet submitted to the jury. Although plaintiffs’ expert testified concerning more than one deviation from the level of care acceptable in the professional community in which defendant Frank LaMar, D.D.S. practices (see generally, Schrempf v State of New York, 66 NY2d 289, 295), plaintiffs relied upon the sole theory that the lack of aggressive postoperative treatment of a fistula caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff Raymond R. LeChase. Thus, the court properly limited both the jury charge and the verdict sheet to that theory. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendants’ contention that Supreme Court erred in this action for dental malpractice in including only one theory of negligence in the verdict sheet submitted to the jury. Although plaintiffs’ expert testified concerning more than one deviation from the level of care acceptable in the professional community in which defendant Frank LaMar, D.D.S. practices (see generally, Schrempf v State of New York, 66 NY2d 289, 295), plaintiffs relied upon the sole theory that the lack of aggressive postoperative treatment of a fistula caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff Raymond R. LeChase. Thus, the court properly limited both the jury charge and the verdict sheet to that theory. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 888, 710 N.Y.S.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lechase-v-lamar-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack