| Midler v Crane |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04027 [14 NY3d 877] |
| May 11, 2010 |
| Court of Appeals |
| As corrected through Wednesday, July 14, 2010 |
[*1]
| Susan Midler, Respondent, v Richard Crane, M.D., Appellant. |
Decided May 11, 2010
Midler v Crane, 67 AD3d 569, reversed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, Uniondale (Douglas A. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
We agree with the Appellate Division majority that, on the facts of this case, there was no inconsistency between the findings that defendant was not negligent in failing to diagnose [*2]the plaintiff's condition and that he was negligent in failing to monitor her. However, the jury's verdict was inconsistent in finding that defendant's failure to monitor the patient was a substantial factor in causing her injury, while the negligence of a nonparty, Dr. Curtis, in failing to transmit his urinalysis results to defendant was not.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.{**14 NY3d at 880}
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.