Majority
p. 670Robert Livreri, Respondent, v Stanley D. Berliner, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated April 15, 1985, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against him, in the principal sum of $95,000, upon a jury verdict.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs expert’s opinion testimony was properly admitted because the assumptions upon which a hypothetical question was based were fairly inferable from the plaintiffs
p. 671
testimony and the defendant’s records (see, Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 NY2d 410 , 414; Richardson, Evidence § 370 [Prince 10th ed]; see also, 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 682 [Chadbourn rev 1979]). Inasmuch as the element of proximate causation was established through the testimony of the plaintiff’s medical expert, the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case is without merit (see, Lipsius v White, 91 AD2d 271 , 277). Despite conflicting testimony from the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s experts, the resolution of those conflicts was a matter for the jury (see, Dunaway v Staten Is. Hosp., 122 AD2d 775 ; Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648 , 650-651).
On these facts, we cannot conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 , 499). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Tarlowe v. Metropolitan Ski Slopes, Inc. 28 NY2d 410 at 414 p. 671
- Lipsius v. White 91 AD2d 271 at 277 p. 671
- Dunaway v. Staten Island Hospital 122 AD2d 775 p. 671
- Taype v. City of New York 82 AD2d 648 at 650-651 p. 671
- Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. 45 NY2d 493 at 499 p. 671