Gellerstein v. Mulvey's Marine Sport Shop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gellerstein v. Mulvey's Marine Sport Shop

283 A.D.2d 397, 723 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4693

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 7, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly allowed the defense witness to testify. Despite the defendants’ failure to provide his address, there is no indication that they willfully failed to comply with the ordered disclosure, and the plaintiffs were aware of the identity of the witness well before trial (see, Malcolm v Darling, 233 AD2d 425, 426; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 AD2d 649, 650; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 AD2d 314, 315). The trial court also properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine. A reasonable view of the trial evidence warranted the charge (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-328; Fuller v Brady, 242 AD2d 522; Donaldson v Kilgore, 187 AD2d 1018; see also, Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Townes, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly allowed the defense witness to testify. Despite the defendants’ failure to provide his address, there is no indication that they willfully failed to comply with the ordered disclosure, and the plaintiffs were aware of the identity of the witness well before trial (see, Malcolm v Darling, 233 AD2d 425, 426; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 AD2d 649, 650; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 AD2d 314, 315). The trial court also properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine. A reasonable view of the trial evidence warranted the charge (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-328; Fuller v Brady, 242 AD2d 522; Donaldson v Kilgore, 187 AD2d 1018; see also, Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Gellerstein v. Mulvey's Marine Sport Shop, 283 A.D.2d 397, 723 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 397 (Gellerstein v. Mulvey's Marine Sport Shop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related