Farro v. Pino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farro v. Pino

212 A.D.2d 755, 624 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 755 (Farro v. Pino) 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

Farro v. Pino, 212 A.D.2d 755, 624 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rosaría Pino appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated January 11, 1993, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $250,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the defense counsel from cross-examining the plaintiff about an unrelated action in which she sought to recover damages for different injuries than those for which she sought to recover damages in the instant action (see, Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636; see also, Di Paolo v Somma, 111 AD2d 899).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 defendant Rosaría Pino appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated January 11, 1993, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $250,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the defense counsel from cross-examining the plaintiff about an unrelated action in which she sought to recover damages for different injuries than those for which she sought to recover damages in the instant action (see, Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636; see also, Di Paolo v Somma, 111 AD2d 899).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 755, 624 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farro-v-pino-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack