Azapinto v. Jamaica Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Azapinto v. Jamaica Hospital

297 A.D.2d 301, 746 N.Y.2d 260, 746 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7928

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

DecidedAugust 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 301 (Azapinto v. Jamaica Hospital) 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

Azapinto v. Jamaica Hospital, 297 A.D.2d 301, 746 N.Y.2d 260, 746 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and, therefore, will not be set aside as being against the weight of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants a short adjournment to locate a witness. The witness’ testimony was material, the application was properly made and was not made for purpose of delay, and the need for the adjournment did not result from the appellants’ failure to exercise due diligence (see Matter of Shepard, 286 AD2d 336; Matter of Weinstock, 283 AD2d 511). Thus, a new trial is granted. If the witness is unavailable within the meaning of CPLR 3117 (a) (3), her deposition testimony may be offered at the new trial.

In light of this determination, the appellants’ remaining contentions need not be reached. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and, therefore, will not be set aside as being against the weight of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants a short adjournment to locate a witness. The witness’ testimony was material, the application was properly made and was not made for purpose of delay, and the need for the adjournment did not result from the appellants’ failure to exercise due diligence (see Matter of Shepard, 286 AD2d 336; Matter of Weinstock, 283 AD2d 511). Thus, a new trial is granted. If the witness is unavailable within the meaning of CPLR 3117 (a) (3), her deposition testimony may be offered at the new trial.

In light of this determination, the appellants’ remaining contentions need not be reached. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 301, 746 N.Y.2d 260, 746 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azapinto-v-jamaica-hospital-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack