Castro v. Beekman Downtown Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castro v. Beekman Downtown Hospital

43 A.D.2d 537, 349 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3108

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 537 (Castro v. Beekman Downtown Hospital) 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

Castro v. Beekman Downtown Hospital, 43 A.D.2d 537, 349 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 7, 1972, inter alla, denying defendant Sze’s motion for a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and said motion granted, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. In this medical malpractice action, the cross-examination of certain defense witnesses took less time than was anticipated, and was concluded before appellant’s sole expert witness (a vascular surgeon), who was then enroute, arrived at the courthouse. Since it was then 10 minutes past noon, defense counsel asked the court for an earlier than usual lunch recess. The request was denied and summation directed. The expert arrived shortly after appellant’s counsel began his summation “ under protest”. Nevertheless, the trial court refused to allow the witness to testify then, or to reopen the case after the lunch recess and before summation by other counsel. In the circumstances here presented, especially in view of the nature of the action, the court’s refusal to grant appellant’s reasonable requests constituted reversible error. (Cf. Murphy v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 492.) Since a new trial is required, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error raised hereon. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Nunez, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 7, 1972, inter alla, denying defendant Sze’s motion for a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and said motion granted, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. In this medical malpractice action, the cross-examination of certain defense witnesses took less time than was anticipated, and was concluded before appellant’s sole expert witness (a vascular surgeon), who was then enroute, arrived at the courthouse. Since it was then 10 minutes past noon, defense counsel asked the court for an earlier than usual lunch recess. The request was denied and summation directed. The expert arrived shortly after appellant’s counsel began his summation “ under protest”. Nevertheless, the trial court refused to allow the witness to testify then, or to reopen the case after the lunch recess and before summation by other counsel. In the circumstances here presented, especially in view of the nature of the action, the court’s refusal to grant appellant’s reasonable requests constituted reversible error. (Cf. Murphy v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 492.) Since a new trial is required, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error raised hereon. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Nunez, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 537, 349 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castro-v-beekman-downtown-hospital-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack