From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Albury v. Bronx Cross-County Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 17, 1994
209 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 17, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Levy, J.).


In this action for malpractice, plaintiff proceeded on two theories of negligence both of which were supported by sufficient evidence. Upon review of the record, we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498-499). There is no basis, therefore, for reversal of the general verdict rendered by the jury on the grounds that it should have been a special verdict (cf., Davis v. Caldwell, 54 N.Y.2d 176). The damages awarded fall within the range of damages awarded in other cases for such injuries and do not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation under the circumstances. With respect to plaintiff's counsel's summation, the court gave a curative instruction concerning any misunderstanding as to references to defense counsel's tactics, as requested by defendant, and the remaining remarks complained of were within the bounds of proper commentary on the evidence and argument.

Concur — Asch, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Albury v. Bronx Cross-County Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 17, 1994
209 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Albury v. Bronx Cross-County Medical Group

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS ALBURY et al., Respondents, v. BRONX CROSS-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 17, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 723

Citing Cases

Kolbert v. Maplewood Healthcare Center, Inc.

Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff advanced three separate theories of negligence, we conclude that each…

Kelly v. City of New York

In any event, appellant does not specifically challenge the sufficiency or weight of the evidence concerning…