Gentile v. Terrace Heights Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gentile v. Terrace Heights Hospital

57 A.D.2d 585, 393 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11568

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 18, 1977·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., defendants Siegel and Harris appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 18, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiffs and against them, upon a jury verdict, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated September 27, 1976, as denied their motions for an order directing the entry of judgment in their favor or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Plaintiff Anthony Gentile cross-appeals from so much of the said judgment as is in his favor, on the ground of inadequacy. Judgment reversed and order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the interest of justice, and new trial granted as between the parties to this appeal, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered on this appeal. Although a trial court is granted wide latitude in controlling the conduct of a trial, here the trial court exercised its discretion improvidently by: (1) interrupting the questioning of witnesses by appellants’ counsel both on direct and cross-examination; (2) frequently summarizing the testimony of witnesses while they were still on the stand; (3) responding, on several occasions, to questions asked by counsel of the witness on the stand; and (4) continually admonishing appellants’ attorneys that they were repeating material already in the record. This conduct, together with the trial court’s sometimes abrupt manner towards appellants’ attorneys in the presence of the jury, gave the distinct impression that the court favored the plaintiffs’ case. The court’s refusal to grant a short continuance to enable appellant Siegel’s expert to testify was also unwarranted. The cumulative effect of this conduct was to unfairly and unreasonably restrict the manner in which the appellants’ case was presented, and precluded the jury from rendering an impartial verdict. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Suozzi, 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 medical malpractice, etc., defendants Siegel and Harris appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 18, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiffs and against them, upon a jury verdict, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated September 27, 1976, as denied their motions for an order directing the entry of judgment in their favor or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Plaintiff Anthony Gentile cross-appeals from so much of the said judgment as is in his favor, on the ground of inadequacy. Judgment reversed and order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the interest of justice, and new trial granted as between the parties to this appeal, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered on this appeal. Although a trial court is granted wide latitude in controlling the conduct of a trial, here the trial court exercised its discretion improvidently by: (1) interrupting the questioning of witnesses by appellants’ counsel both on direct and cross-examination; (2) frequently summarizing the testimony of witnesses while they were still on the stand; (3) responding, on several occasions, to questions asked by counsel of the witness on the stand; and (4) continually admonishing appellants’ attorneys that they were repeating material already in the record. This conduct, together with the trial court’s sometimes abrupt manner towards appellants’ attorneys in the presence of the jury, gave the distinct impression that the court favored the plaintiffs’ case. The court’s refusal to grant a short continuance to enable appellant Siegel’s expert to testify was also unwarranted. The cumulative effect of this conduct was to unfairly and unreasonably restrict the manner in which the appellants’ case was presented, and precluded the jury from rendering an impartial verdict. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Gentile v. Terrace Heights Hospital, 57 A.D.2d 585, 393 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

57 A.D.2d 585 (Gentile v. Terrace Heights Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related