BOVAY v. PODOLSKY (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Lori J. BOVAY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Scott PODOLSKY, M.D., Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 1.)

Decided: November 12, 1999

PRESENT: DENMAN, P.J., PINE, WISNER, PIGOTT, JR., and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Timothy J. Perry, Syracuse, for defendant-appellant. Robert E. Lahm, Syracuse, for plaintiff-respondent.

We reject the contention of Scott Podolsky, M.D. (defendant) that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, Grassi v. Ulrich, 87 N.Y.2d 954, 641 N.Y.S.2d 588, 664 N.E.2d 499; Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163; F.K. Gailey Co. v. Wahl, 262 A.D.2d 985, 692 N.Y.S.2d 563). The testimony of plaintiff's medical expert supports the conclusion that medical care provided by defendant to plaintiff fell below the level of care acceptable in the professional community in which defendant practices (see, Schrempf v. State of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 289, 295, 496 N.Y.S.2d 973, 487 N.E.2d 883; Kelly v. State of New York, 259 A.D.2d 962, 687 N.Y.S.2d 843), and that defendant's deviation from the applicable standard of care was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (see, De Stefano v. Immerman, 188 A.D.2d 448, 449, 591 N.Y.S.2d 47).

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network