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.
Yuriy Novikov, etc., appellant, v. Yury Zamdborg, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Argued-November 12, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Mark M. Basichas & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Aleksey Feygin of counsel), appellant.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), entered July 1, 2009, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants Yury Zamdborg, John Costa, and Isaia Avraham and against him, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, comments made during defense openings and summation were not improper, as they were based on evidence presented at trial, and the questions posed to witnesses by defense counsel, and testimony of defense experts were proper (see Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643, 646; Plainview Water Dist. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 66 AD3d 754, 755; Friedman v. Marcus, 32 AD3d 820).
The plaintiff waived any claim that the decedent's medical records from Lenox Hill Hospital, with the exception of her autopsy report, should have been redacted, as the plaintiff submitted those records into evidence at the beginning of the trial and did not request that they be redacted until after the jury began deliberations (see Plantation House & Garden Prods. v R-Three Invs., 285 A.D.2d 539, 540; see also People v. Soberanis, 289 A.D.2d 343, 344). In any event, the medical records were properly admitted, as they were germane to the diagnosis and treatment of the decedent (see Bruce-Bishop v. Jafar, 302 A.D.2d 345; Moran v. Demarinis, 152 A.D.2d 546, 547).
The plaintiff's contention that the jury verdict was inconsistent is without merit (see Lovett v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 52 AD3d 578, 580; Sukhoo v. City of New York, 1 AD3d 349).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, ENG and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-07516 (Index No. 15953 /03)
Decided: December 14, 2010
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)