Opinion
January 20, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).
The record contains sufficient evidence to permit a finding that Con Ed's negligence in permitting a circuit breaker panel to remain open was a substantial and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, including, inter alia, the testimony of plaintiff's medical expert ruling out the possibility that plaintiff had sustained an electrical burn or shock, as opposed to a flash burn, based on the absence of entrance and exit wounds that result when an electric current passes through a human body. That the cause of plaintiff's injury was the subject of conflicting testimony is not a ground for setting aside the verdict as a matter of law or as against the weight of the evidence (see, Furia v. Mellucci, 163 A.D.2d 88, 89, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 803). We have considered Con Ed's remaining claims and find them to be without merit. We note that although the right of direct appeal from an intermediate order terminates with the entry of a judgment, the issues raised on appeal from the order were considered pursuant to CPLR 5501 (a) (1) (see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Henry Warren Corp., 196 A.D.2d 564).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.