Kaplan v. International Paint (U.S.A.), Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. International Paint (U.S.A.), Inc.

250 A.D.2d 817, 671 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5966

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[818] —In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff James M. Kaplan appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered October 16, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the court properly admitted evidence of the lack of prior similar accidents (see, Wagner v Chance Co., 231 AD2d 566; Goldberg v Union Hardware Co., 162 AD2d 658). In addition, the court properly precluded the appellant from using certain medical articles to impeach Dr. Richard Stewart on cross examination since Dr. Stewart refused to admit to the authoritativeness of the articles (see, Walsh v Staten Is. Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., 193 AD2d 672, 673).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

[818] —In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff James M. Kaplan appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered October 16, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the court properly admitted evidence of the lack of prior similar accidents (see, Wagner v Chance Co., 231 AD2d 566; Goldberg v Union Hardware Co., 162 AD2d 658). In addition, the court properly precluded the appellant from using certain medical articles to impeach Dr. Richard Stewart on cross examination since Dr. Stewart refused to admit to the authoritativeness of the articles (see, Walsh v Staten Is. Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., 193 AD2d 672, 673).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Kaplan v. International Paint (U.S.A.), Inc., 250 A.D.2d 817, 671 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 817 (Kaplan v. International Paint (U.S.A.), Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related