Spagnole v. Staten Island University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spagnole v. Staten Island University Hospital

77 A.D.3d 816, 908 N.Y.S.2d 883

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 19, 2010·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), entered May 18, 2009, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Jury interrogatories must be based on claims supported by the evidence (see Marzuillo v Isom, 277 AD2d 362, 363 [2000]). Here, the Supreme Court properly declined to submit to the jury the proposed interrogatory regarding whether the defendants departed from the standard of care and proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to order a CT scan on November 20, 2002, as that theory of recovery was not based on evidence adduced at trial (see Murray v Maniatis, 21 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2005]; cf. Beizer v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 433, 434 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this Court. Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), entered May 18, 2009, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Jury interrogatories must be based on claims supported by the evidence (see Marzuillo v Isom, 277 AD2d 362, 363 [2000]). Here, the Supreme Court properly declined to submit to the jury the proposed interrogatory regarding whether the defendants departed from the standard of care and proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to order a CT scan on November 20, 2002, as that theory of recovery was not based on evidence adduced at trial (see Murray v Maniatis, 21 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2005]; cf. Beizer v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 433, 434 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this Court. Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.

Spagnole v. Staten Island University Hospital, 77 A.D.3d 816, 908 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

77 A.D.3d 816 (Spagnole v. Staten Island University Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related