Messina v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.

• Decision Date: 15 October 2014
• Citation: 121 A.D.3d 867,994 N.Y.S.2d 644,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06952
• Parties: Robert MESSINA, et al., respondents, v. STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

?121 A.D.3d 867
994 N.Y.S.2d 644
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06952

Robert MESSINA, et al., respondents,
v.
STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, appellant.

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

Oct. 15, 2014

Affirmed.

[994 N.Y.S.2d 645]

Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christopher Simone and Lauren J. Daniels of counsel), for appellant.

The Ashley Law Firm PLLC (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III], of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated May 24, 2012, as denied that branch of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability finding it 75% at fault for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs 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, as excessive, the damages awards in the sums of $1,000,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,992,000 for future pain and suffering.

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

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR ... 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party” ( Tapia v. Dattco, Inc., 32 A.D.3d 842, 844, 821 N.Y.S.2d 124; see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346; Flynn v. Elrac, Inc., 98 A.D.3d 938, 939, 950 N.Y.S.2d 582). “In considering such a motion, ‘the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’ ” ( Hand v. Field, 15 A.D.3d 542, 543, 790 N.Y.S.2d 681, quoting Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d at 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346; see Leonard v. New York City Tr. Auth., 90 A.D.3d 858, 859, 934...