Padilla v. Montefiore Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padilla v. Montefiore Medical Center

119 A.D.3d 493, 990 N.Y.S.2d 207

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

DecidedJuly 31, 2014

Docket12854 303454/10

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 493 (Padilla v. Montefiore Medical Center) 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

Padilla v. Montefiore Medical Center, 119 A.D.3d 493, 990 N.Y.S.2d 207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*494 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 21, 2013, which, after a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, granted so much of defendants’ posttrial motion as sought to set aside the jury’s verdict, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendants’ motion granted only to the extent of remanding the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering, unless plaintiff stipulates, within 30 days after service of this order, with notice of entry, to reduce the award for past pain and suffering from $800,000 to of $225,000.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant doctor committed malpractice during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, i.e. gall bladder removal surgery. Defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint should have been denied. The experts’ disagreement as to whether the injury to the right common iliac artery, based upon its location in the body, was an accepted complication of the surgery, was a jury issue (see Feldman v Levine, 90 AD3d 477 [1st Dept 2011]). It cannot be said that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [jurors] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

Defendants, however, persuasively argue that a total award of $800,000 for plaintiffs past pain and suffering is excessive and deviates from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]). The award exceeded what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated (compare Harris v City of N.Y. Health & Hosps. Corp., 49 AD3d 321 [1st Dept 2008], and Cruz v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 259 AD2d 432 [1st Dept 1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*494 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 21, 2013, which, after a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, granted so much of defendants’ posttrial motion as sought to set aside the jury’s verdict, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendants’ motion granted only to the extent of remanding the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering, unless plaintiff stipulates, within 30 days after service of this order, with notice of entry, to reduce the award for past pain and suffering from $800,000 to of $225,000.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant doctor committed malpractice during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, i.e. gall bladder removal surgery. Defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint should have been denied. The experts’ disagreement as to whether the injury to the right common iliac artery, based upon its location in the body, was an accepted complication of the surgery, was a jury issue (see Feldman v Levine, 90 AD3d 477 [1st Dept 2011]). It cannot be said that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [jurors] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

Defendants, however, persuasively argue that a total award of $800,000 for plaintiffs past pain and suffering is excessive and deviates from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]). The award exceeded what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated (compare Harris v City of N.Y. Health & Hosps. Corp., 49 AD3d 321 [1st Dept 2008], and Cruz v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 259 AD2d 432 [1st Dept 1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 493, 990 N.Y.S.2d 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padilla-v-montefiore-medical-center-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack