Hirschmann v. Kaggen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschmann v. Kaggen

142 A.D.2d 554, 530 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7316

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.2d 554 (Hirschmann v. Kaggen) 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

Hirschmann v. Kaggen, 142 A.D.2d 554, 530 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death of the plaintiff’s decedent, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 19, 1988, as, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to preclude the testimony of Frank Grillo, a nonparty witness, at the trial unless the defendant was given the opportunity and the witness made himself available to be questioned concerning the circumstances of this accident at least two weeks prior to the selection of a jury in this case.

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

Under the circumstances, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by precluding the trial testimony of Frank Grillo, a nonparty witness, unless the defendant was given the opportunity to examine the witness at least two weeks prior to jury selection (see, Rozakis v Tilo Co., 32 AD2d 930). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Balletta, 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 conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death of the plaintiff’s decedent, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 19, 1988, as, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to preclude the testimony of Frank Grillo, a nonparty witness, at the trial unless the defendant was given the opportunity and the witness made himself available to be questioned concerning the circumstances of this accident at least two weeks prior to the selection of a jury in this case.

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

Under the circumstances, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by precluding the trial testimony of Frank Grillo, a nonparty witness, unless the defendant was given the opportunity to examine the witness at least two weeks prior to jury selection (see, Rozakis v Tilo Co., 32 AD2d 930). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 554, 530 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschmann-v-kaggen-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack