Opinion
March 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Francis Becker, J.).
The trial court properly set aside the verdict as against the evidence. No reasonable interpretation of the evidence supports any finding other than that the burn on plaintiff's calf, which subsequently required a skin graft, was sustained when the gooseneck lamp that was adjusted over defendant's shoulder came into contact with plaintiff's leg during the course of her gynecological treatment in defendant's office.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.