Bobrowsky v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.

261 A.D.2d 349, 689 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 3, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 349 (Bobrowsky v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., 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
Bobrowsky v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 261 A.D.2d 349, 689 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated June 12, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs contention that her claim of psychiatric injury or damage was completely withdrawn is belied by the record. Since the plaintiff affirmatively placed her mental condition at issue, she waived the physician-client privilege and her psychiatric records were properly admitted into evidence (see, Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287; Daniele v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 74 AD2d 814). Moreover, these records were properly used to impeach the plaintiff during cross-examination (see, Ellarson v Ellarson, 198 App Div 103; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-418 [Farrell 11th ed]; cf., People v Rensing, 14 NY2d 210).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to preclude the trial testimony of the defendants’ experts for failure to timely and adequately respond to expert discovery demands (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; Tamborino v Burakoff, 224 AD2d 609).

The plaintiffs remaining claims regarding specific evidentiary rulings are either unpreserved for appellate review or [350]*350without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Graziano v. Cagan
105 A.D.3d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Corbey v. Allam
58 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Friedman v. Frank
16 Misc. 3d 321 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 A.D.2d 349, 689 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobrowsky-v-toyota-motor-sales-usa-inc-nyappdiv-1999.