Brullo v. Schiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brullo v. Schiro

239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4577

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 309 (Brullo v. Schiro) 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

Brullo v. Schiro, 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Diane M. Schiro and Joseph W. Schiro appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), entered March 12, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is against them and in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $425,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial as against the defendants Diane M. Schiro and Joseph W. Schiro limited to the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event.

The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the appellants’ accident reconstruction expert. The expert’s opinion that the plaintiff was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident and that he would not have sustained facial injuries had he utilized the available restraint system was sufficiently based upon facts in the record and, therefore, was admissible (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 646; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-308 [Farrell 11th ed]). Since the exclusion of that testimony prevented the appellants from attempting to prove that the plaintiff should not recover for those injuries, a new trial on the issue of damages is required.

In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the appellants’ remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Diane M. Schiro and Joseph W. Schiro appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), entered March 12, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is against them and in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $425,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial as against the defendants Diane M. Schiro and Joseph W. Schiro limited to the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event.

The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the appellants’ accident reconstruction expert. The expert’s opinion that the plaintiff was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident and that he would not have sustained facial injuries had he utilized the available restraint system was sufficiently based upon facts in the record and, therefore, was admissible (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 646; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-308 [Farrell 11th ed]). Since the exclusion of that testimony prevented the appellants from attempting to prove that the plaintiff should not recover for those injuries, a new trial on the issue of damages is required.

In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the appellants’ remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brullo-v-schiro-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack