Case Name: Susan Midler, Respondent, v. Richard Crane, M.D., Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2010-05-11
Citations: 14 N.Y.3d 877
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susan Midler, Respondent, v Richard Crane, M.D., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 877–880

Head Matter:
[929 NE2d 397, 903 NYS2d 334]
Susan Midler, Respondent, v Richard Crane, M.D., Appellant.
Decided May 11, 2010
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, Uniondale (Douglas A. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
We agree with the Appellate Division majority that, on the facts of this case, there was no inconsistency between the findings that defendant was not negligent in failing to diagnose the plaintiffs condition and that he was negligent in failing to monitor her. However, the jury's verdict was inconsistent in finding that defendant's failure to monitor the patient was a substantial factor in causing her injury, while the negligence of a nonparty, Dr. Curtis, in failing to transmit his urinalysis results to defendant was not.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.