Capwell v. Muslim

• Decision Date: 25 January 2011
• Citation: 915 N.Y.S.2d 617,80 A.D.3d 722
• Parties: Scott CAPWELL, etc., respondent, v. Arif M. MUSLIM, etc., et al., defendants, Westchester County Healthcare Corporation, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

915 N.Y.S.2d 617

80 A.D.3d 722

Scott CAPWELL, etc., respondent,

v. Arif M. MUSLIM, etc., et al., defendants,Westchester County Healthcare Corporation, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 25, 2011.

Kanterman, O'Leary & Soscia, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., and Patricia D'Alvia of counsel), for appellant.

Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, New York, N.Y. (Judith A. Livingston and Matthew Gaier of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., the defendant Westchester County Healthcare Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered July 1, 2009, as, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sums of $3,000,000 for past pain and suffering and $4,000,000 for loss of consortium,denied that branch of its motion pursuant toCPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, or, in the alternative, to set aside the damages award for past pain and suffering as excessive, and granted that branch of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the damages award for loss of consortium as excessive only to the extent of directing a new trial on that issue unless the plaintiff stipulated to a reduction of loss of consortium damages to the sum of $1,000,000, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict as to damages for wrongful death as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial on the issue of whether its departure in the care and treatment of the plaintiff's decedent was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's death and, if so, on the issue of the damages sustained as a result of the decedent's death.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"Before granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial" ...