Passanante v. Snyder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Passanante v. Snyder

142 A.D.2d 669, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7911

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 669 (Passanante v. Snyder) 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

Passanante v. Snyder, 142 A.D.2d 669, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for dental and medical malpractice, the defendants Norman Snyder, Jonathan Kameros and Stanley H. Warmund appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), entered February 19, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal amount of $575,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

On the record before us, it cannot be said that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict will not be set aside on this ground unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).

We have reviewed the appellants’ remaining contentions, including the claim that the verdict was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for dental and medical malpractice, the defendants Norman Snyder, Jonathan Kameros and Stanley H. Warmund appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), entered February 19, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal amount of $575,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

On the record before us, it cannot be said that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict will not be set aside on this ground unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).

We have reviewed the appellants’ remaining contentions, including the claim that the verdict was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 669, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/passanante-v-snyder-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack