Pello v. Syed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pello v. Syed

41 A.D.3d 568, 836 N.Y.S.2d 434

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 568 (Pello v. Syed) 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

Pello v. Syed, 41 A.D.3d 568, 836 N.Y.S.2d 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated March 14, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review her contentions that the defense counsel’s cross-examination of one of her expert witnesses, as well as certain comments made by defense counsel about this witness in his summation, diverted the jurors’ attention from the issues to be determined and deprived her of a fair trial (see Friedman v Marcus, 32 AD3d 820 [2006]; Doyle v Nusser, 288 AD2d 176 [2001]; Ritz v Lee, 273 AD2d 291 [2000]; Lind v City of New York, 270 AD2d 315, 317 [2000]). In any event, these contentions are without merit (see Vingo v Rosner, 29 AD3d 896, 897 [2006]; Ritz v Lee, supra; Lind v City of New York, supra at 317; Torrado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 198 AD2d 346, 347 [1993]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated March 14, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review her contentions that the defense counsel’s cross-examination of one of her expert witnesses, as well as certain comments made by defense counsel about this witness in his summation, diverted the jurors’ attention from the issues to be determined and deprived her of a fair trial (see Friedman v Marcus, 32 AD3d 820 [2006]; Doyle v Nusser, 288 AD2d 176 [2001]; Ritz v Lee, 273 AD2d 291 [2000]; Lind v City of New York, 270 AD2d 315, 317 [2000]). In any event, these contentions are without merit (see Vingo v Rosner, 29 AD3d 896, 897 [2006]; Ritz v Lee, supra; Lind v City of New York, supra at 317; Torrado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 198 AD2d 346, 347 [1993]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 568, 836 N.Y.S.2d 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pello-v-syed-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack