Smith v. New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center

299 A.D.2d 284, 749 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 284 (Smith v. New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center) 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

Smith v. New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, 299 A.D.2d 284, 749 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J., and a jury), entered on or about November 9, 2001, in a medical malpractice action, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff $1 million for her decedent’s pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[285]*285The award does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]), where the record fairly shows that the decedent was conscious after the malpractice that punctured his carotid artery, during which he was aware of the grotesque nature of the injury caused thereby and resulting need for emergency measures, and that he suffered intense pain. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J., and a jury), entered on or about November 9, 2001, in a medical malpractice action, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff $1 million for her decedent’s pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[285]*285The award does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]), where the record fairly shows that the decedent was conscious after the malpractice that punctured his carotid artery, during which he was aware of the grotesque nature of the injury caused thereby and resulting need for emergency measures, and that he suffered intense pain. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 284, 749 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-new-york-hospital-cornell-medical-center-nyappdiv-2002.