AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

CELINA LOPEZ, ET AL., respondents, v. ORLANDO BAUTISTA, ET AL., appellants, ET AL., defendants.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff Jose Lopez damages in the sum of $200,000 for loss of services, and substituting therefor a provision severing that cause of action and granting a new trial with respect thereto; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellants, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff Jose Lopez of a copy of this decision and order, he shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to damages for past loss of services from the sum of $200,000 to $100,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff Jose Lopez so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs Celina Lopez and her husband Jose Lopez were awarded damages following a jury trial in which it was found that Celina's family physician committed malpractice when he failed to advise her of the results of a mammogram, allowing her breast cancer to progress and go untreated over the course of approximately 20 months, to the point that a mastectomy was required.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Evidence presented at trial was adequate to provide a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences for rational people to conclude that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the appellants' negligence (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, as it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Ferrer v. Harris, 55 N.Y.2d 285; Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., supra)

The damages award was excessive to the extent indicated herein.

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LOPEZ v. BAUTISTA
(Oct 22, 2001)