Midler v. Crane

New York Court of Appeals

Midler v. Crane

929 N.E.2d 397, 14 N.Y.3d 877, 903 N.Y.S.2d 334

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

Docket146 SSM 18

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 929 N.E.2d 397 (Midler v. Crane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

929 N.E.2d 397, 14 N.Y.3d 877, 903 N.Y.S.2d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midler-v-crane-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack