| Goldberg v Sottile & Megna, M.D., P.C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06589 [54 AD3d 359] |
| August 12, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ellen F. Goldberg, Appellant, v Sottile & Megna, M.D.,P.C., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf LLP, New York, N.Y. (Martin B. Adams and Simpson Thacher &Bartlett LLP [Roy L. Reardon], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appealsfrom a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), entered December 27,2006, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a),inter alia, to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, isin favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review her contentions that the defense counsel'scross-examination of her expert witnesses, as well as certain comments made by defense counselin his summation, diverted the jurors' attention from the issues to be determined and deprived herof a fair trial (see Pello v Syed, 41AD3d 568 [2007]; Vingo vRosner, 29 AD3d 896 [2006]; Bacigalupo v Healthshield, Inc., 231 AD2d 538[1996]; Torrado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 198 AD2d 346 [1993]; Kamen v City of NewYork, 169 AD2d 705 [1991]).
Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. "A jury verdict shouldnot be set aside as against the weight of the evidence 'unless the jury could not have reached theverdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence' " (Casimir v Bar-Zvi, 36 AD3d 578, 578 [2007], quoting Nicastrov Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). "The jury's resolution of conflicting expert testimony isentitled to great weight, as it is the jury that had the opportunity to observe and hear the experts"(Speciale v Achari, 29 AD3d674, 675 [2006]). Here, the jury's determination that the defendants did not depart from goodand accepted medical practice in failing to timely diagnose the plaintiff's decedent with adissecting thoracic aorta was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial,and thus should not be disturbed (see Casimir v Bar-Zvi, 36 AD3d at 578-579;Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Lifson and Dillon, JJ.,concur.