Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale

197 A.D.2d 403, 602 N.Y.S.2d 139

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 403 (Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale) 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

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale, 197 A.D.2d 403, 602 N.Y.S.2d 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered August 7, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the sum of $33,027.88 as against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the use of the C.P.A.’s testimony and restricting defendant Spinale’s private attorney’s testimony. Not only was the C.P.A. unqualified to opine as to the value of legal services, his testimony would have sought to draw factual conclusions from the evidence, a function within the province of the jury. As for Spinale’s attorney, she was not properly qualified as an expert nor did she have a substantial basis for her opinions regarding the relevant excluded testimony (see, Moore v Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., 150 AD2d 183, 185). We also note that the excluded testimony would not likely have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict (see, Dizak v State of New York, 124 AD2d 329, 331).

Finally, the award of preverdict and postverdict interest was warranted pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) and 5002 (see, Ash & Miller v Freedman, 114 AD2d 823). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered August 7, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the sum of $33,027.88 as against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the use of the C.P.A.’s testimony and restricting defendant Spinale’s private attorney’s testimony. Not only was the C.P.A. unqualified to opine as to the value of legal services, his testimony would have sought to draw factual conclusions from the evidence, a function within the province of the jury. As for Spinale’s attorney, she was not properly qualified as an expert nor did she have a substantial basis for her opinions regarding the relevant excluded testimony (see, Moore v Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., 150 AD2d 183, 185). We also note that the excluded testimony would not likely have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict (see, Dizak v State of New York, 124 AD2d 329, 331).

Finally, the award of preverdict and postverdict interest was warranted pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) and 5002 (see, Ash & Miller v Freedman, 114 AD2d 823). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 403, 602 N.Y.S.2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadwalader-wickersham-taft-v-spinale-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack