NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 10, 2009
MARION STEWART, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
STEVEN A. ODRICH, M.D., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,
MARC G. ODRICH, M.D., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 14, 2007, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant Steven A. Odrich, M.D., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta, JJ.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant and according due deference to the fact-finding function of the jury and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we find that the verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lopez v New York City Tr. Auth., 60 AD3d 529 ). The jury could reasonably have concluded that, based upon the testimony of defendants' expert doctors and the other medical evidence, defendant had not departed from acceptable standards of care and treatment by glaucoma specialists.
The brevity of the jury's deliberations alone did not undermine plaintiff's right to a fair trial. Plaintiff has come forward with no affirmative proof that would rebut the presumption of regularity to which the jury's verdict is entitled (see Carolan v Altruda, 17 AD2d 211, 213 , affd 15 NY2d 1010 ; People v Marcano, 199 AD2d 86, 87 ).
We reject plaintiff's contention that the judgment is inconsistent with the evidence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.