Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Linda MOCCIA, et al., appellants, v. Dennis Sungho CHI, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), entered January 29, 2004, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants Dennis Sungho Chi and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and against them, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In reviewing the record to ascertain whether a verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, great deference must be given to the fact-finding function of the jury, as it was in the foremost position to assess witness credibility (see Kallon v. Lamaute, 11 A.D.3d 587, 782 N.Y.S.2d 672, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 702, 790 N.Y.S.2d 648, 824 N.E.2d 49; Bobek v. Crystal, 291 A.D.2d 521, 739 N.Y.S.2d 396). The jury verdict that the defendants Dennis Sungho Chi and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in the review and diagnosis of the plaintiff Linda Moccia, and the subsequent performance of a total abdominal hysterectomy, was based on a fair interpretation of the credible evidence and should not be disturbed (see Stanley v. Locke, 1 A.D.3d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: May 16, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)