Lu v. Spinelli
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Caminiti v. Extell W. 57th St. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Cruz v. Richardson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Sulay L. v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Star Meth Corp. v. Steiner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Glassberg v. Filco Carting Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Glassberg v. Filco Carting Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Peat v. Fordham Hill Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Peat v. Fordham Hill Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Melo v. Morm Management Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Micky v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Micky v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Hinkle v. Trejo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 5, 2006, upon a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The jury’s verdict in favor of defendants in this medical malpractice action was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]). Issues of credibility are for the jury and its resolution of such issues is entitled to deference (see Robinson v City of New York, 300 AD2d 384 [2002]). The jury reasonably rejected plaintiffs claim that her informed consent for the eyelid surgery was not properly obtained because defendants had promised to keep her awake during the surgery so that she could give permission to allow a graft to lengthen her eyelid if one was needed (see Cioffi v Lenox Hill Hosp., 287 AD2d 335 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 612 [2002]). The evidence established that defendants discussed the procedure with plaintiff and made no such promises, and contrary to plaintiffs position, she could not have provided informed consent during the surgery while under anesthesia. The missing informed consent form executed by
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.