From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pello v. Syed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 2007
41 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-03643.

June 12, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated March 14, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Behrins Behrins, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Bruce G. Behrins and Jonathan Behrins of counsel), for appellant.

Belair Evans, LLP, New York, N.Y. (James B. Reich and John T. Evans of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review her contentions that the defense counsel's cross-examination of one of her expert witnesses, as well as certain comments made by defense counsel about this witness in his summation, diverted the jurors' attention from the issues to be determined and deprived her of a fair trial ( see Friedman v Marcus, 32 AD3d 820; Doyle v Nusser, 288 AD2d 176; Ritz v Lee, 273 AD2d 291; Lind v City of New York, 270 AD2d 315, 317). In any event, these contentions are without merit ( see Vingo v Rosner, 29 AD3d 896, 897; Ritz v Lee, supra; Lind v City of New York, supra at 317; Torrado v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 198 AD2d 346, 347).


Summaries of

Pello v. Syed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 2007
41 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Pello v. Syed

Case Details

Full title:MARIANN PELLO, Appellant, v. RADHA SYED et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2007

Citations

41 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5245
836 N.Y.S.2d 434

Citing Cases

Searcy v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

The Court held, at 347, "[w]hile we agree with the defendant that these remarks were improper, we find that…

Searcy v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

The Court held, at 347, "[w]hile we agree with the defendant that these remarks were improper, we find that…