Vaz v. Hantverk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vaz v. Hantverk

258 A.D.2d 570, 682 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 570 (Vaz v. Hantverk) 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

Vaz v. Hantverk, 258 A.D.2d 570, 682 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death arising from medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated October 8, 1997, which, after a jury trial, granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendant and directed a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the verdict in favor of the defendant was not inconsistent, and it was not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict (see, Otero v Hyatt, 235 AD2d 407; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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 wrongful death arising from medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated October 8, 1997, which, after a jury trial, granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendant and directed a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the verdict in favor of the defendant was not inconsistent, and it was not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict (see, Otero v Hyatt, 235 AD2d 407; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 570, 682 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaz-v-hantverk-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack