Colon v. Futterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colon v. Futterman

222 A.D.2d 548, 636 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12973

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 548 (Colon v. Futterman) 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

Colon v. Futterman, 222 A.D.2d 548, 636 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered August 17, 1994, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability.

[549]*549Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that the jury verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding one of the plaintiff's witnesses from testifying, since the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of this witness until the middle of the trial and the defendant had no prior knowledge of this witness (cf., Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 AD2d 669; Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 AD2d 506, 508; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 AD2d 649). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered August 17, 1994, which, after a jury trial, was in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability.

[549]*549Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that the jury verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding one of the plaintiff's witnesses from testifying, since the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of this witness until the middle of the trial and the defendant had no prior knowledge of this witness (cf., Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 AD2d 669; Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 AD2d 506, 508; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 AD2d 649). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 548, 636 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-futterman-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack