 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Best v. Phillips3/18/2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
(*1)
Argued - February 22, 2002
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated November 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
(*2) ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the exhibit introduced at trial by the defendant ophthalmologists depicting a cross-section of a human eye and labeled "Large Retina Detachment", was not intended to be an accurate representation of the plaintiff's eye at the time he commenced receiving medical treatment (cf., Wasserman v Genovese Drug Stores, 282 AD2d 447, 448; Leven v. Tallis Department Store, 178 AD2d 466). The use of the exhibit as a visual aid for clarification did not prejudice the plaintiff (see, People v. Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767).
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
|