Almonacid v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almonacid v. Grant

250 A.D.2d 558, 671 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 558 (Almonacid v. Grant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Almonacid v. Grant, 250 A.D.2d 558, 671 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 27, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

At trial, the plaintiff sought to admit into evidence a copy of her treating physician’s billing records, the originals of which had been destroyed pursuant to the office procedure of her treating physician. Contrary to her contention, since she was unable to establish that the copy was authentic and accurately reflected the contents of the original, the document was properly excluded from evidence (see, Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 639).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 27, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

At trial, the plaintiff sought to admit into evidence a copy of her treating physician’s billing records, the originals of which had been destroyed pursuant to the office procedure of her treating physician. Contrary to her contention, since she was unable to establish that the copy was authentic and accurately reflected the contents of the original, the document was properly excluded from evidence (see, Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 639).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 558, 671 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almonacid-v-grant-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack