Sofair v. Levin-Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sofair v. Levin-Epstein

231 A.D.2d 706, 647 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9690

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 706 (Sofair v. Levin-Epstein) 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

Sofair v. Levin-Epstein, 231 A.D.2d 706, 647 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for lack of informed consent, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered June 23, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $160,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and according her the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626), the jury verdict finding lack of informed consent was supported by sufficient evidence (see, Public Health Law § 2805-d [1], [3]; CPLR 4401-a). The plaintiff adduced sufficient expert testimony regarding the inadequacy of the defendant’s warnings regarding the inherent risks of the surgery (cf, Gonzalez v Moscarella, 142 AD2d 550).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for lack of informed consent, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered June 23, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $160,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and according her the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626), the jury verdict finding lack of informed consent was supported by sufficient evidence (see, Public Health Law § 2805-d [1], [3]; CPLR 4401-a). The plaintiff adduced sufficient expert testimony regarding the inadequacy of the defendant’s warnings regarding the inherent risks of the surgery (cf, Gonzalez v Moscarella, 142 AD2d 550).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 706, 647 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sofair-v-levin-epstein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack