Betancourt v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Betancourt v. City of New York

269 A.D.2d 177, 703 N.Y.S.2d 438, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1148

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 177 (Betancourt 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

Betancourt v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 177, 703 N.Y.S.2d 438, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J., and a jury), entered January 20, 1999, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall in a puddle of water allegedly caused by a defectively designed sewer, and argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because defendant failed to adduce expert opinion countering the expert opinion he introduced that the sewer’s placement at other than the lowest part of the roadway made it prone to clogging. This argument overlooks the challenge that was made to plaintiffs expert’s [178]*178credibility, as well as the lack of evidence as to the condition of the sewer at the time of the accident, the condition of the street at the time of the sewer’s installation, and the violation of any statutory or regulatory standards. The trial court properly denied plaintiffs application to recant his testimony on direct examination that prior to the accident he had never observed the sewer to be clogged and never observed a nearby fire hydrant to be leaking, where such recantation was sought only after plaintiff consulted with his attorney during a lunch break after his cross-examination had already begun (cf., People v Branch, 83 NY2d 663, 667). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J., and a jury), entered January 20, 1999, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall in a puddle of water allegedly caused by a defectively designed sewer, and argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because defendant failed to adduce expert opinion countering the expert opinion he introduced that the sewer’s placement at other than the lowest part of the roadway made it prone to clogging. This argument overlooks the challenge that was made to plaintiffs expert’s [178]*178credibility, as well as the lack of evidence as to the condition of the sewer at the time of the accident, the condition of the street at the time of the sewer’s installation, and the violation of any statutory or regulatory standards. The trial court properly denied plaintiffs application to recant his testimony on direct examination that prior to the accident he had never observed the sewer to be clogged and never observed a nearby fire hydrant to be leaking, where such recantation was sought only after plaintiff consulted with his attorney during a lunch break after his cross-examination had already begun (cf., People v Branch, 83 NY2d 663, 667). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 177, 703 N.Y.S.2d 438, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betancourt-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack