Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants contend that the Supreme Court erred in considering the causation testimony proffered by the plaintiff's medical expert. This contention, however, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]). In light of the defendants' failure to raise a Frye objection (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]; see also Parker v Mobil Oil Corp.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.