Narrative Opinion Summary
Judgment was entered by the Supreme Court, New York County, on December 8, 1993, awarding the plaintiff $100,000 plus interest. The decision was unanimously affirmed without costs. The court noted that any discrepancies in testimony regarding whether Brevitol could have entered the plaintiff's wrist through a hypodermic injection in either the back of her hand or wrist, as well as conflicts in expert opinions regarding the causation of the injury, were matters for the jury to resolve. The court declined to disturb the jury's determination. Additionally, the court found the appellants' other arguments to be without merit. The judgment was concurred by Justices Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, and Tom.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court of New York County's decision to award the plaintiff $100,000 plus interest was affirmed by the appellate court without costs.
Reasoning: Judgment was entered by the Supreme Court, New York County, on December 8, 1993, awarding the plaintiff $100,000 plus interest. The decision was unanimously affirmed without costs.
Jury Determination on Factual Discrepanciessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury's role in resolving discrepancies in testimony and conflicts in expert opinions regarding causation of the injury.
Reasoning: The court noted that any discrepancies in testimony regarding whether Brevitol could have entered the plaintiff's wrist through a hypodermic injection in either the back of her hand or wrist, as well as conflicts in expert opinions regarding the causation of the injury, were matters for the jury to resolve.
Rejection of Appellants' Additional Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no merit in the additional arguments presented by the appellants.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court found the appellants' other arguments to be without merit.