Brown v. Psycho Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Psycho Inc.

213 A.D.2d 271, 624 N.Y.S.2d 26

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 271 (Brown v. Psycho 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

Brown v. Psycho Inc., 213 A.D.2d 271, 624 N.Y.S.2d 26 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx [272]*272County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered June 27, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the sum of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s preclusion of the testimony of defendants’ witnesses as to whom formal notice was not provided does not warrant a new trial in light of defendants’ earlier insistence that actual notice of the witnesses’ identities was not a substitute for formal notice with respect to plaintiff’s proposed witnesses; moreover, in the absence of an offer of proof as to the substance of the testimony, it cannot be determined whether defendants were prejudiced by the ruling.

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx [272]*272County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered June 27, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the sum of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s preclusion of the testimony of defendants’ witnesses as to whom formal notice was not provided does not warrant a new trial in light of defendants’ earlier insistence that actual notice of the witnesses’ identities was not a substitute for formal notice with respect to plaintiff’s proposed witnesses; moreover, in the absence of an offer of proof as to the substance of the testimony, it cannot be determined whether defendants were prejudiced by the ruling.

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 271, 624 N.Y.S.2d 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-psycho-inc-nyappdiv-1995.