Stanley v. Locke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanley v. Locke

1 A.D.2d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 428 (Stanley v. Locke) 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

Stanley v. Locke, 1 A.D.2d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated February 22, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict that the surgery performed by the defendant was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was based on a fair interpretation of the credible evidence and. should not be disturbed (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). It is well settled that a jury’s resolution of conflicting expert [429]*429testimony is entitled to great weight, since it is the jury that had the opportunity to observe and hear the experts (see Bobek v Crystal, 291 AD2d 521, 522 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 505 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.E, Goldstein, Adams and Mastro, 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 lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated February 22, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict that the surgery performed by the defendant was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was based on a fair interpretation of the credible evidence and. should not be disturbed (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). It is well settled that a jury’s resolution of conflicting expert [429]*429testimony is entitled to great weight, since it is the jury that had the opportunity to observe and hear the experts (see Bobek v Crystal, 291 AD2d 521, 522 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 505 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.E, Goldstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-locke-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack