Seaman v. Lawrence Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seaman v. Lawrence Hospital

102 A.D.2d 849, 476 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19039

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

DecidedJune 11, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 849 (Seaman v. Lawrence Hospital) 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

Seaman v. Lawrence Hospital, 102 A.D.2d 849, 476 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Lawrence Hospital appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County [850]*850(Walsh, J.), dated March 14, 1983, which was in favor of plaintiff Flora Seaman in the principal sum of $85,000 (upon a jury verdict of $97,500 reduced by virtue of a $12,500 settlement between said plaintiff and defendant Haig) and in favor of plaintiff A. Raymond Seaman in the principal sum of $2,500. I Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff A. Raymond Seaman, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. H Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff Flora Seaman, reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, action severed and a new trial granted as to said plaintiff on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, she shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to the principal sum of $62,500, less the sum of $12,500 previously paid to her by defendant Dr. Armen Charles Haig, in which event the judgment in her favor, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. H The verdict in favor of plaintiff Flora Seaman was excessive to the extent indicated (see Senko v Fonda, 53 AD2d 638). Although she is left with a visible scar on her left thigh as a result of a burn she sustained by virtue of defendant Lawrence Hospital’s negligence during a surgical procedure unrelated to the area of injury and which scar concededly may cause her some embarrassment in the summer months, the record does not establish sufficient justification for a damages award as large as the one here assessed by the jury. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Lawrence Hospital appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County [850]*850(Walsh, J.), dated March 14, 1983, which was in favor of plaintiff Flora Seaman in the principal sum of $85,000 (upon a jury verdict of $97,500 reduced by virtue of a $12,500 settlement between said plaintiff and defendant Haig) and in favor of plaintiff A. Raymond Seaman in the principal sum of $2,500. I Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff A. Raymond Seaman, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. H Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff Flora Seaman, reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, action severed and a new trial granted as to said plaintiff on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, she shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to the principal sum of $62,500, less the sum of $12,500 previously paid to her by defendant Dr. Armen Charles Haig, in which event the judgment in her favor, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. H The verdict in favor of plaintiff Flora Seaman was excessive to the extent indicated (see Senko v Fonda, 53 AD2d 638). Although she is left with a visible scar on her left thigh as a result of a burn she sustained by virtue of defendant Lawrence Hospital’s negligence during a surgical procedure unrelated to the area of injury and which scar concededly may cause her some embarrassment in the summer months, the record does not establish sufficient justification for a damages award as large as the one here assessed by the jury. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 849, 476 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaman-v-lawrence-hospital-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack