Opinion
November 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siragusa, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant committed malpractice in performing arthroscopic surgery on plaintiff's knee (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499), and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, Kuncio v. Millard Fillmore Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 975, 976, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 608). "To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, `[i]t is enough that [plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred' (Ingersoll v. Liberty Bank, 278 N.Y. 1, 7)" (Schneider v. Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 N.Y.2d 743, 744; accord, Pollicina v. Misericordia Hosp. Med. Ctr., 158 A.D.2d 194, 200, lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 934). Plaintiff was not required to prove the precise nature of defendant's negligence (see, Schneider v. Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., supra, at 745; Pollicina v. Misericordia Hosp. Med. Ctr., supra, at 200; Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400, 408, affd 5 N.Y.2d 958). The experts testified that standard precautionary methods of protecting the peroneal nerve would have prevented the nature and the extent of the damage to plaintiff's nerve. That testimony sufficiently supports the jury's finding that defendant was negligent (see, Villa v. City of New York, 148 A.D.2d 699; Welsh v. State of New York, 51 A.D.2d 602).
We reject defendant's contentions that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to return a general verdict and that the amount of damages awarded is excessive.