From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petko v. Ghoorah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 26, 1991
178 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We disagree with plaintiffs' argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see generally, Petrovski v Fornes, 125 A.D.2d 972, 973, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 608). The jury was entitled to believe defendant's testimony that plaintiff wife complained only once of rectal bleeding and defendant's expert's testimony that defendant acted in accordance with accepted medical standards in treating her. The court did not err in giving an "error in judgment" charge (PJI 2:150); each party's expert testified to acceptable methods of diagnosing and treating rectal bleeding when an anal fissure is found (cf., Spadaccini v Dolan, 63 A.D.2d 110).


Summaries of

Petko v. Ghoorah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 26, 1991
178 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Petko v. Ghoorah

Case Details

Full title:SALLY PETKO et al., Appellants, v. BIJAY P. GHOORAH, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 26, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Martin v. Lattimore Road Surgicenter, Inc. [4th Dept 2001

In this case, as in Capolino v. New York Health Hosps. Corp., ( supra, at 174), "[t]he acceptable courses had…

Harden v. Faulk

Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in allowing defendant to…