Regelski v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Regelski v. Weber

209 A.D.2d 965, 619 N.Y.S.2d 230

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 965 (Regelski v. Weber) 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

Regelski v. Weber, 209 A.D.2d 965, 619 N.Y.S.2d 230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of defendants. "It is settled law that a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) should not be granted unless the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Kuncio v Millard Fillmore Hosp., 117 AD2d 975, 976, lv denied 68 NY2d 608; see also, Frasier v McIlduff, 161 AD2d 856, 858). "Moreover, when the issue at trial involves the credibility of conflicting expert testimony, the resolution of that conflict is 'a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury’ ” (Martin v Seaman, 184 AD2d 996, lv denied 80 NY2d 759, quoting Shaw v Binghamton Lodge No. 852, 155 AD2d 805, 806).

There was conflicting expert testimony whether defendants’ [966]*966treatment of plaintiff Thomas Regelski deviated from accepted medical practice. The jury resolved that issue in defendants’ favor, and we cannot conclude that the verdict could not have been reached "upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Kuncio v Millard Fillmore Hosp., supra, at 976). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Balio, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of defendants. "It is settled law that a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) should not be granted unless the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Kuncio v Millard Fillmore Hosp., 117 AD2d 975, 976, lv denied 68 NY2d 608; see also, Frasier v McIlduff, 161 AD2d 856, 858). "Moreover, when the issue at trial involves the credibility of conflicting expert testimony, the resolution of that conflict is 'a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury’ ” (Martin v Seaman, 184 AD2d 996, lv denied 80 NY2d 759, quoting Shaw v Binghamton Lodge No. 852, 155 AD2d 805, 806).

There was conflicting expert testimony whether defendants’ [966]*966treatment of plaintiff Thomas Regelski deviated from accepted medical practice. The jury resolved that issue in defendants’ favor, and we cannot conclude that the verdict could not have been reached "upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Kuncio v Millard Fillmore Hosp., supra, at 976). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Balio, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 965, 619 N.Y.S.2d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regelski-v-weber-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack