Legal Opinion
Henry v. New York City Transit Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 7, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The award for future lost earnings must be reduced, as indicated above, to conform to the evidence.
The admission of plaintiff’s dental testimony as to causation was proper. While the dentist did not render his opinion with “a *461reasonable degree of medical certainty,” causation was established by his testimony, when considered in its entirety, and plaintiffs history of first noticing the loose teeth in the hospital following the accident (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 460 [1979]). The weight to be accorded to conflicting expert testimony was within the province of the jury (see Torricelli v…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Matott v. WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Lind v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Purcell v. AxelsenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Torricelli v. PisacanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Brzozowy v. ELRAC, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fortune v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Newark v. PimentelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Newark v. PimentelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014