Trudel v. Donnenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trudel v. Donnenfeld

29 A.D.3d 569, 813 N.Y.S.2d 310

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 569 (Trudel v. Donnenfeld) 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

Trudel v. Donnenfeld, 29 A.D.3d 569, 813 N.Y.S.2d 310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered October 18, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Sullivan v Katz, 7 AD3d 513 [2004]; McKnight v LaGuardia Hosp., 263 AD2d 500, 501 [1999]). We reject the plaintiffs contention that trial errors and misconduct by the defendants’ attorney require reversal and a new trial. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lunn, 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, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered October 18, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Sullivan v Katz, 7 AD3d 513 [2004]; McKnight v LaGuardia Hosp., 263 AD2d 500, 501 [1999]). We reject the plaintiffs contention that trial errors and misconduct by the defendants’ attorney require reversal and a new trial. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 569, 813 N.Y.S.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trudel-v-donnenfeld-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack