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

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 397 (Gellerstein v. Mulvey's Marine Sport Shop) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 397, 723 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gellerstein-v-mulveys-marine-sport-shop-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack