Bennett v. Saeger Hotels, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 946, 619 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11939
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 946 (Bennett v. Saeger Hotels, Inc.) 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
Bennett v. Saeger Hotels, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 946, 619 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an incident that occurred when the infant jumped, fell, or was pushed from a seventh-floor window of defendant’s hotel, plaintiff appeals [947]*947from an order that granted defendant’s motion in limine to preclude the infant from testifying concerning her allegedly hypnotically enhanced recollection of the incident, and to restrict her testimony to her pre-hypnotic recollection. Supreme Court properly precluded the proffered testimony (see, People v Hughes, 59 NY2d 523; cf., People v Schreiner, 77 NY2d 733; People v Hults, 76 NY2d 190; People v Tunstall, 63 NY2d 1; see also, Austin v Barker, 90 App Div 351, on appeal after remand 110 App Div 510). We reject plaintiff’s contention that the rule developed in criminal cases is inapplicable in this civil context. In deeming hypnotic testimony unreliable and inadmissible per se, the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected a case-by-case approach (see, People v Schreiner, supra, at 739; People v Hughes, supra, at 538-540) and has not relied on constitutional or statutory grounds unique to criminal cases, but on evidentiary considerations common to criminal and civil cases. We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. —Restrict Testimony.) Present—Denman, P: J., Pine, Lawton, Wesley and Davis, JJ. [See, 158 Misc 2d 79.]

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

Related

Gubenko v. Maderni
2025 NY Slip Op 51742(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 A.D.2d 946, 619 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-saeger-hotels-inc-nyappdiv-1994.