Vargas v. Seafarers' Welfare Plan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vargas v. Seafarers' Welfare Plan

260 A.D.2d 629, 687 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 629 (Vargas v. Seafarers' Welfare Plan) 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

Vargas v. Seafarers' Welfare Plan, 260 A.D.2d 629, 687 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Rosetta Minutello appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated May 30, 1997, which denied her motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered June 27, 1997, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $1,028,668.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

[630]*630Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Rosetta Minutello, the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence from which a jury could rationally conclude that the decedent’s stroke and eventual death were proximately caused by her departure from good and accepted medical practice (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499; Mortensen v Memorial Hosp., 105 AD2d 151, 158; Mertsaris v 73rd Corp., 105 AD2d 67, 82-83; Kiker v Nassau County, 175 AD2d 99). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, 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 defendant Rosetta Minutello appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated May 30, 1997, which denied her motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered June 27, 1997, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $1,028,668.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

[630]*630Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Rosetta Minutello, the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence from which a jury could rationally conclude that the decedent’s stroke and eventual death were proximately caused by her departure from good and accepted medical practice (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499; Mortensen v Memorial Hosp., 105 AD2d 151, 158; Mertsaris v 73rd Corp., 105 AD2d 67, 82-83; Kiker v Nassau County, 175 AD2d 99). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 629, 687 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-seafarers-welfare-plan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack