Davison v. Park Avenue Properties Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davison v. Park Avenue Properties Associates

183 A.D.2d 681, 586 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7368

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 1992·Published

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J., and a jury) entered April 5, 1991, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant in the amount of $350,000, exclusive of interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly admitted the testimony of Dr. Rosenblum, correctly concluding that he was a treating physician (see, Scott v Mason, 155 AD2d 655, 657), and not a physician hired only to testify as an expert witness (see, Nissen v Rubin, 121 AD2d 320). Nor did plaintiff’s cross-examination so exceed the bounds of fair comment as to justify the setting aside of a verdict adequately supported by the evidence, particularly in the absence of any objections preserving the issue for appellate review (see, Boyd v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 114 AD2d 307).

We have considered appellant’s arguments that the verdict is excessive and was not properly itemized pursuant to CPLR 4111 (f), and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J., and a jury) entered April 5, 1991, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant in the amount of $350,000, exclusive of interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly admitted the testimony of Dr. Rosenblum, correctly concluding that he was a treating physician (see, Scott v Mason, 155 AD2d 655, 657), and not a physician hired only to testify as an expert witness (see, Nissen v Rubin, 121 AD2d 320). Nor did plaintiff’s cross-examination so exceed the bounds of fair comment as to justify the setting aside of a verdict adequately supported by the evidence, particularly in the absence of any objections preserving the issue for appellate review (see, Boyd v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 114 AD2d 307).

We have considered appellant’s arguments that the verdict is excessive and was not properly itemized pursuant to CPLR 4111 (f), and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Davison v. Park Avenue Properties Associates, 183 A.D.2d 681, 586 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

183 A.D.2d 681 (Davison v. Park Avenue Properties Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related