Davanzo v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davanzo v. Fisher

304 A.D.2d 452, 758 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4200

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

DecidedApril 22, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 452 (Davanzo v. Fisher) 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

Davanzo v. Fisher, 304 A.D.2d 452, 758 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered March 7, 2002, which, after a jury trial, in this action [453]*453for dental malpractice, inter alia, awarded plaintiff Dominick Davanzo damages in the amount of $271,600, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly dismissed defendant’s genetic predisposition defense at the conclusion of the defense case since there was no evidentiary basis for the defense. Although plaintiff testified that his mother had lost her teeth, there was no evidence that her tooth loss had been attributable to periodontal disease, a threshold necessity. Since the capacity of defendant’s employee to provide material, noncumulative testimony respecting plaintiff’s care and treatment while a patient in defendant’s dental practice was conceded, and defendant did not, despite his employee’s agreement to testify, make a diligent effort to secure her court appearance (cf. People v Skaar, 225 AD2d 824 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 854 [1996]), the court’s delivery of a missing witness charge constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see Spoto v S.D.R. Constr., 226 AD2d 202, 204 [1996]). The jury’s pain and suffering award does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see CPLR 5501 [c]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered March 7, 2002, which, after a jury trial, in this action [453]*453for dental malpractice, inter alia, awarded plaintiff Dominick Davanzo damages in the amount of $271,600, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly dismissed defendant’s genetic predisposition defense at the conclusion of the defense case since there was no evidentiary basis for the defense. Although plaintiff testified that his mother had lost her teeth, there was no evidence that her tooth loss had been attributable to periodontal disease, a threshold necessity. Since the capacity of defendant’s employee to provide material, noncumulative testimony respecting plaintiff’s care and treatment while a patient in defendant’s dental practice was conceded, and defendant did not, despite his employee’s agreement to testify, make a diligent effort to secure her court appearance (cf. People v Skaar, 225 AD2d 824 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 854 [1996]), the court’s delivery of a missing witness charge constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see Spoto v S.D.R. Constr., 226 AD2d 202, 204 [1996]). The jury’s pain and suffering award does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see CPLR 5501 [c]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 452, 758 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davanzo-v-fisher-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack