AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
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)
Judges

DENNIS GONZALEZ, ETC., ET AL., appellants, v. LOK K. CHENG, ET AL., respondents.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPLR 4404[a]). In reviewing the record to ascertain whether the verdict was a fair reflection of the evidence, great deference must be accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, as it was in the foremost position to assess witness credibility (see, Teneriello v. Travelers Cos., 264 A.D.2d 772; Salazar v. Fisher, 147 A.D.2d 470).

Given the medical testimony that the infant plaintiff's injuries were not caused by lead poisoning, the jury's determination was not against the weight of the evidence. Although the medical evidence furnished by the plaintiffs was inconsistent and contrary to the medical evidence furnished by the defendants, the credibility of the witnesses, and the accuracy of their testimony, whether contradicted or not, presented clear issues of fact to be resolved by the jury (see, Velez v. Cullinan, 251 A.D.2d 496).

With respect to the plaintiffs' contention concerning several comments made by defense counsel during summation, the plaintiffs failed to object to those comments, and therefore failed to preserve their claims of error for appellate review (see, Koplick v. Lieberman, 270 A.D.2d 460; Herberer v. Nassau Hosp., 119 A.D.2d 729). In any event, when read in context, the comments were within the bounds of the wide latitude allowed to counsel during summation (see, Califano v. City of New York, 212 A.D.2d 146).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GONZALEZ v. CHENG
(Oct 22, 2001)