Best v. Phillips

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. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. 484 Contrary to the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs eye at the time he commenced receiving medical treatment (cf, Wasserman v Genovese Drug Stores, 282 AD2d 447, 448; Leven v Tallis Dept. 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.