Perez v. Siskel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Siskel

107 A.D.2d 742, 484 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42649

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 742 (Perez v. Siskel) 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

Perez v. Siskel, 107 A.D.2d 742, 484 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated August 16, 1983, which, after a jury verdict, was in favor of defendant.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff’s primary contention at trial was that defendant’s decedent removed an excessive amount of cartilage from her nose when he performed a submucous resection. Given the sharp conflict between the respective experts called by plaintiff and defendant concerning, inter alia, whether the pathology report indicated that a normal or an egregiously abnormal amount of cartilage had been removed, and whether infection could have remained in plaintiff’s nose after the operation, it cannot be said that “ ‘the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiff’s favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence’” (Tannenbaum v Mandell, 51 AD2d 593; see Siegel, NY Prac, § 406). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, 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 medical malpractice, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated August 16, 1983, which, after a jury verdict, was in favor of defendant.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff’s primary contention at trial was that defendant’s decedent removed an excessive amount of cartilage from her nose when he performed a submucous resection. Given the sharp conflict between the respective experts called by plaintiff and defendant concerning, inter alia, whether the pathology report indicated that a normal or an egregiously abnormal amount of cartilage had been removed, and whether infection could have remained in plaintiff’s nose after the operation, it cannot be said that “ ‘the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiff’s favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence’” (Tannenbaum v Mandell, 51 AD2d 593; see Siegel, NY Prac, § 406). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 742, 484 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-siskel-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack