Rose v. Zinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose v. Zinberg

128 A.D.3d 940, 8 N.Y.S.3d 582

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

DecidedMay 20, 2015

Docket2013-07810

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 940 (Rose v. Zinberg) 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

Rose v. Zinberg, 128 A.D.3d 940, 8 N.Y.S.3d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., the defendant Jonathan Zinberg appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated June 12, 2013, which, upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against him on the issue of liability, and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $500,000 for the decedent’s pain and suffering and $200,000 for the plaintiffs loss of consortium, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $700,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict with respect to causation (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; St. Dic v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 12 AD3d 661 [2004]). Moreover, the verdict on the issue of liability was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Evans v St. Mary’s Hosp. of Brooklyn, 1 AD3d 314 [2003]; Romero v Karavidas, 282 AD2d 665 [2001]).

*941 The amount of damages awarded is primarily a question for the jury, whose determination is entitled to great deference (see Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]; Crockett v Long Beach Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 606, 607 [2005]; Day v Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Inst., 11 AD3d 505 [2004]). We find that the amount of damages awarded by the jury for the decendent’s pain and suffering and the plaintiffs loss of consortium did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Galandauer v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 274 AD2d 448 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, 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 and wrongful death, etc., the defendant Jonathan Zinberg appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated June 12, 2013, which, upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against him on the issue of liability, and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $500,000 for the decedent’s pain and suffering and $200,000 for the plaintiffs loss of consortium, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $700,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict with respect to causation (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; St. Dic v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 12 AD3d 661 [2004]). Moreover, the verdict on the issue of liability was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Evans v St. Mary’s Hosp. of Brooklyn, 1 AD3d 314 [2003]; Romero v Karavidas, 282 AD2d 665 [2001]).

*941 The amount of damages awarded is primarily a question for the jury, whose determination is entitled to great deference (see Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]; Crockett v Long Beach Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 606, 607 [2005]; Day v Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Inst., 11 AD3d 505 [2004]). We find that the amount of damages awarded by the jury for the decendent’s pain and suffering and the plaintiffs loss of consortium did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Galandauer v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 274 AD2d 448 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 940, 8 N.Y.S.3d 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-zinberg-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack