| Lolly v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09283 [90 AD3d 862] |
| December 20, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Theresa Lolly, Appellant, v Brookdale University Hospitaland Medical Center et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Bower, Monte & Greene, P.C. (Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. [Caryn L.Lilling and Katherine Herr Solomon], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), entered October 2, 2009, which,upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, and upon an order of the same court dated August 4,2009, denying her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict on the issue ofliability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendantsBrookdale University Hospital and Medical Center, Saulis Maius Banionis, and Syed Ahmed andagainst her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jurycould not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Ferreira v Wyckoff Hgts. Med.Ctr., 81 AD3d 587, 588 [2011]; see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). "Where, as here, conflictingexpert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert's opinion and reject that ofanother expert" (Ferreira v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 81 AD3d at 588; see Frenchman v Westchester Med.Ctr., 77 AD3d 618, 619 [2010]; Morales v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 71 AD3d 648, 650 [2010]; Segal v City of New York, 66 AD3d865, 867 [2009]; Ross vMandeville, 45 AD3d 755, 757 [2007]). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the jury'sfindings in this case were based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, were notcontrary to the weight of the evidence (see Frenchman v Westchester Med. Ctr., 77 AD3d 618 [2010]; Lovett v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 52 AD3d578 [2008]; Manuka vCrenshaw, 43 AD3d 886 [2007]).
The facts adduced at trial were insufficient to warrant a jury charge on the doctrine of res ipsaloquitur. The nature of the testimony did not give rise to an inference of negligence based uponthe mere occurrence of the adverse event at issue (see Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89NY2d 489 [1997]; Saccone v Gross,84 AD3d 1208 [2011]; Sangiovanniv Koloski, 31 AD3d 422 [2006]; Johnson v Farr, 268 AD2d 560 [2000];Abbott v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 141 AD2d 589 [1988]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen andRoman, JJ., concur.