Dublis v Bosco
2010 NY Slip Op 02087 [71 AD3d 817]
March 16, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010


Helen Dublis, Respondent,
v
Joseph Bosco, Appellant, etal., Defendants.

[*1]Patrick F. Adams, PLLC (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., White Plains, N.Y [PatriciaD'Alvia], of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph Edward Brady, P.C., Howard Beach, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Joseph Boscoappeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), enteredSeptember 17, 2008, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the principalsums of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, andupon the denial of his posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set aside theverdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $500,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly denied his motion to set asidethe verdict is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff(see Cucuzza v New York City Tr. Auth., 251 AD2d 445 [1998]), a valid line ofreasoning exists by which a rational jury could have concluded that the appellant departed fromgood and accepted standards of medical care and that the departure was a substantial factor incausing the plaintiff's injuries (see Cavlin v New York Med. Group, 286 AD2d 469, 470[2001]; Jump v Facelle, 275 AD2d 345 [2000]; Mortensen v Memorial Hosp.,105 AD2d 151, 158 [1984]). Moreover, the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not contraryto the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Murray v Weisenfeld, 37 AD3d432 [2007]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Finally, the damages award isnot excessive, as it does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation(see CPLR 5501 [c]).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.