Gomes v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomes v. State

272 A.D.2d 440, 708 N.Y.S.2d 316

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

DocketClaim No. 93027

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 440 (Gomes v. State) 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

Gomes v. State, 272 A.D.2d 440, 708 N.Y.S.2d 316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated June 14, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant Antonio Gomes allegedly sustained physical injuries when an aluminum extension ladder upon which he was working suddenly began telescoping downward, stopping when his arm became caught between the rungs. Gomes’s testimony failed to explain how or why the ladder began contracting. The State proffered the testimony of its safety expert that Gomes’s misuse of the ladder was responsible for the incident. The Court of Claims credited the testimony of the State’s expert and dismissed the claim. We affirm.

Contrary to the claimants’ contentions, the Court of Claims did not err in admitting the testimony of the State’s expert witness. Despite the unavailability of the ladder at the time of trial, this witness’s testimony was properly based upon facts in evidence (see, Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723; Herzog v Miller, 236 AD2d 517; Tucker v Elimelech, 184 AD2d 636, 637). Moreover, the expert’s opinion was expressed with sufficient certainty as to satisfy accepted standards of reliability (see, Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459; Matter of Weisenthal v New York State Bd. of Regents, 249 AD2d 712; Edgewater Apts, v Flynn, 216 AD2d 53; Sumowicz v Gimbel Bros., 161 AD2d 314; Sitaras v Ricciardi & Sons, 154 AD2d 451). The court’s factual determination was not against the weight of the credible evidence and accordingly should not be [441]*441disturbed (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Mathieu v State of New York, 267 AD2d 284; Matter of TriState Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated June 14, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant Antonio Gomes allegedly sustained physical injuries when an aluminum extension ladder upon which he was working suddenly began telescoping downward, stopping when his arm became caught between the rungs. Gomes’s testimony failed to explain how or why the ladder began contracting. The State proffered the testimony of its safety expert that Gomes’s misuse of the ladder was responsible for the incident. The Court of Claims credited the testimony of the State’s expert and dismissed the claim. We affirm.

Contrary to the claimants’ contentions, the Court of Claims did not err in admitting the testimony of the State’s expert witness. Despite the unavailability of the ladder at the time of trial, this witness’s testimony was properly based upon facts in evidence (see, Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723; Herzog v Miller, 236 AD2d 517; Tucker v Elimelech, 184 AD2d 636, 637). Moreover, the expert’s opinion was expressed with sufficient certainty as to satisfy accepted standards of reliability (see, Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459; Matter of Weisenthal v New York State Bd. of Regents, 249 AD2d 712; Edgewater Apts, v Flynn, 216 AD2d 53; Sumowicz v Gimbel Bros., 161 AD2d 314; Sitaras v Ricciardi & Sons, 154 AD2d 451). The court’s factual determination was not against the weight of the credible evidence and accordingly should not be [441]*441disturbed (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Mathieu v State of New York, 267 AD2d 284; Matter of TriState Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 440, 708 N.Y.S.2d 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomes-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack