Quezada v. O'Reilly-GreenQuezada v. O'Reilly-Green
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Christopher P. O’Reilly-Green appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 5, 2004, as, upon granting that branch of the motion of the defendant St. Joseph’s Medical Center pursuant to
The defendant Christopher P. O’Reilly-Green (hereinafter Dr. Green) argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the damages awarded for pain and suffering, future psychological expenses, future case manager expenses, future vocational counseling, and future loss of income. This argument is without merit as the evidence presented at trial provided a rational basis for the jury’s determination that the infant plaintiff sustained such damages due to Dr. Green’s medical malpractice in connection with his birth (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Altman v Alpha Obstetrics & Gynecology, 255 AD2d 276, 277 [1998]).
Although Dr. Green presented conflicting expert testimony, “ ‘affording due deference to the jury’s resolution of that conflict and giving [the] plaintiff[s] every favorable inference that can be drawn from the evidence,’ we find no valid basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict” (Cramer v Benedictine Hosp., 301 AD2d 924, 930 [2003], quoting Fridovich v Meinhardt, 247 AD2d 791, 792 [1998]).
In addition, the trial court properly granted, at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, that branch of the motion of the defendant St. Joseph’s Medical Center (hereinafter St. Joseph’s), pursuant to
Dr. Green’s application for collateral source set-offs was properly rejected, since he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is “highly probable” that the services at issue will be received (Caruso v LeFrois Bldrs., 217 AD2d 256, 259 [1995]; see
However, the award of damages for past and future pain and suffering, and future case management services, deviated
Dr. Green’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.