Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

White v. Rubinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 9, 1998

255 A.D.2d 378; 679 N.Y.S.2d 668; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11821

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Kerins v. Vassar College (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Kaplan v. Nadler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Glover v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Morgan v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Stylianou v. Calabrese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Jennings v. DeFreitas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Vasquez v. Jacobowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Ramos v. Shah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Benain v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Verghese George appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated February 11, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in his favor, and ordered a new trial.

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

“It is well settled that a verdict * * * should not be set aside unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Keegan v Prout, 215 AD2d 629, 630; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). The credibility of the witnesses, the accuracy of their testimony, whether contradicted or not, present clear issues of fact to be resolved by the jury (see, Sorokin v Food Fair Stores, 51 AD2d 592). Because the jury’s verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, it should not have been disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, supra, at 134). Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.