Midler v. Crane

929 N.E.2d 397, 14 N.Y.3d 877, 903 N.Y.S.2d 334
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 11, 2010·No. 146 SSM 18·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

We agree with the Appellate Division majority that, on the facts of this case, there was no inconsistency between the findings that defendant was not negligent in failing to diagnose the plaintiffs condition and that he was negligent in failing to monitor her. However, the jury’s verdict was inconsistent in finding that defendant’s failure to monitor the patient was a substantial factor in causing her injury, while the negligence of a nonparty, Dr. Curtis, in failing to transmit his urinalysis results to defendant was not.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

*880 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

Midler v. Crane, 929 N.E.2d 397, 14 N.Y.3d 877, 903 N.Y.S.2d 334 (N.Y. 2010).

929 N.E.2d 397 (Midler v. Crane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Appleyard v. Tigges
2023 NY Slip Op 00260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
MAZELLA, JANICE v. BEALS, M.D., WILLIAM
124 A.D.3d 1328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
APPLEBEE, STEPHEN v. COUNTY OF CAYUGA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Applebee v. County of Cayuga
103 A.D.3d 1267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Midler v. Crane
15 N.Y.3d 821 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)