Bianco v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr.
Decision Date | 14 December 2010 |
Citation | 79 A.D.3d 777,912 N.Y.S.2d 433 |
Parties | Janet BIANCO, appellant-respondent, v. FLUSHING HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, respondent-appellant, et al., defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Leeds Morelli & Brown, P.C., Carle Place, N.Y. (Rick Ostrove of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ellen B. Fishman, Kenneth R. Larywon, and Steven M. Berlin of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
In an action to recover damages for violations of Executive Law § 296 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), dated September 11, 2009, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Flushing Hospital Medical Center pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which were to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages to the extent of ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the award for past emotional distress from the sum of $8,000,000 to the sum of $750,000, to reduce the award for future emotional distress from the sum of $5,500,000 to zero, and to reduce the punitive damages award from the sum of $1,500,000 to zero, and the defendant Flushing Hospital Medical Center cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied those branches of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which were to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial on the issues of liability and damages.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The contention of the defendant Flushing Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter the hospital) that there was insufficient evidence to establish its vicarious liability for the sexual harassment of the plaintiff by an attending physician at the hospital is without merit. In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether there is any "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead a rational [person] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial" ( Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; see Schwalb v. Kulaski, 38 A.D.3d 876, 877, 832 N.Y.S.2d 650). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must ( see Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 509, 620 N.Y.S.2d 302, 644 N.E.2d 993; Campos v. Ofman, 49 A.D.3d 485, 853 N.Y.S.2d 369), we find that a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusionreached by the jury herein. Moreover,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bertram v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp.
...York, 90 A.D.3d 425, 426 (1st Dep't 2011); Hancock v. 330 Hull Realty Corp., 225 A.D.2d 365 (1st Dep't 1996); Bianco v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 79 A.D.3d 777, 779 (2d Dep't 2010); Friedman v. Marcus, 32 A.D.3d 820 (2d Dep't 2006), the attorney was not permitted to do so by relying on fact......
-
In the Matter of State v. Anonymous
...the trial and create a climate of hostility that effectively deprived the appellant of a fair trial ( see Bianco v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 79 A.D.3d 777, 912 N.Y.S.2d 433; Matter of State of New York v. Andrew O., 68 A.D.3d 1161, 1166, 890 N.Y.S.2d 667, lv. granted 14 N.Y.3d 706, 899 N.Y......
-
Alexandridis v. Van Gogh Contracting Co.
...88–89, 557 N.Y.S.2d 344 ; see generally Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Biggio, 110 A.D.3d 673, 973 N.Y.S.2d 236 ; Bianco v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 79 A.D.3d 777, 912 N.Y.S.2d 433 ). Accordingly, those branches of the Van Gogh defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the......
- Bernier v. Torres