Williams v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. State

56 A.D.2d 1208, 866 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 1208 (Williams v. State) 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

Williams v. State, 56 A.D.2d 1208, 866 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Diane L. Fitzpatrick, J.), entered July 20, 2007 in a medical malpractice action. The judgment awarded claimant money damages after a nonjury trial.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment in this medical malpractice action, defendant contends that the Court of Claims erred in refusing to limit its liability to that of a successive tortfeasor liable only for the aggravation of claimant’s injuries that were caused by prior malpractice. Defendant raises that contention for the first time on appeal, however, and it therefore is not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present — Smith, J.E, Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Diane L. Fitzpatrick, J.), entered July 20, 2007 in a medical malpractice action. The judgment awarded claimant money damages after a nonjury trial.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment in this medical malpractice action, defendant contends that the Court of Claims erred in refusing to limit its liability to that of a successive tortfeasor liable only for the aggravation of claimant’s injuries that were caused by prior malpractice. Defendant raises that contention for the first time on appeal, however, and it therefore is not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present — Smith, J.E, Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 1208, 866 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack