Corrado v Davuluri

Annotate this Case
Corrado v Davuluri 2014 NY Slip Op 08165 Decided on November 21, 2014 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 21, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
1150 CA 14-00672

[*1]KATHLEEN CORRADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF LUCAS DELGATTO, INFANT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

v

CHOUDARY DAVULURI, M.D., ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER'S MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH CENTER AND ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered June 25, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for a directed verdict.



MARTIN, GANOTIS, BROWN, MOULD & CURRIE, P.C., DEWITT (DANIEL P. LARABY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CHOUDARY DAVULURI, M.D.

HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (ASHLEY D. HAYES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER'S MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH CENTER AND ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER.

DEFRANCISCO & FALGIANTANO LAW FIRM, SYRACUSE (CHARLES L. FALGIATANO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.



It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case (see CPLR 4401). The jury was unable to reach a verdict after the close of evidence, and Supreme Court declared a mistrial. The appeals must be dismissed. The court's order denying the motion for a directed verdict embodies "determinations in the nature of rulings by the court during the trial and is not appealable" (Covell v H.R.H. Constr. Corp ., 24 AD2d 566, 567, affd 17 NY2d 709; see Kinker v 6409-20th Ave. Realty Corp. , 28 AD2d 907, 908, appeal dismissed 20 NY2d 796; see also Kemp v Lynch , 283 AD2d 934, 934), either as of right or by permission (see Radford v Sheridan Prods. , 181 AD2d 667, 668).

Entered: November 21, 2014

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.