Aponte v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aponte v. City of New York

282 A.D.2d 372, 723 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4095

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 372 (Aponte v. City of New York) 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

Aponte v. City of New York, 282 A.D.2d 372, 723 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1999, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff, in this action to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a trip and fall at a bus stop, damages in the principal amount of $175,000 against defendant City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s verdict was sufficiently supported by evidence establishing that defendant City, through its contractor, created the bump in the road that caused plaintiff to fall and sustain injury. In reaching its verdict, the jury was entitled to credit and rely upon plaintiff’s testimony, physical evidence consisting of photographs and work permits, and the testimony of plaintiff’s liability expert (see, Gayle v City of New York, 92 NY2d 936, 937).

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing plaintiff’s liability expert to testify. Even if plaintiff’s CPLR 3101 (d) response was deficient, plaintiff’s notice of claim, her complaint and her bill of particulars combined to afford sufficient notice of the subject matter and substance of the expert’s testimony (see, Misel v N.F.C. Cab Corp., 240 AD2d 294, 295). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about December 29, 1999, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff, in this action to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a trip and fall at a bus stop, damages in the principal amount of $175,000 against defendant City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s verdict was sufficiently supported by evidence establishing that defendant City, through its contractor, created the bump in the road that caused plaintiff to fall and sustain injury. In reaching its verdict, the jury was entitled to credit and rely upon plaintiff’s testimony, physical evidence consisting of photographs and work permits, and the testimony of plaintiff’s liability expert (see, Gayle v City of New York, 92 NY2d 936, 937).

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing plaintiff’s liability expert to testify. Even if plaintiff’s CPLR 3101 (d) response was deficient, plaintiff’s notice of claim, her complaint and her bill of particulars combined to afford sufficient notice of the subject matter and substance of the expert’s testimony (see, Misel v N.F.C. Cab Corp., 240 AD2d 294, 295). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 372, 723 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aponte-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack