Labate v. Plotkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Labate v. Plotkin

195 A.D.2d 444, 600 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7012

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 444 (Labate v. Plotkin) 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

Labate v. Plotkin, 195 A.D.2d 444, 600 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ro[445]*445berto, J.), entered August 31, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The defendant David Plotkin was the plaintiffs obstetrician and delivered her daughter Jacqueline on January 21, 1976. Jacqueline is mentally retarded and also suffers from additional maladies. The plaintiff commenced the present action alleging, inter alia, that Dr. Plotkin’s failure to perform a cesarean section and to attach an internal fetal monitor was a departure from accepted medical standards. The jury determined that Dr. Plotkin had not departed from accepted medical standards in his care of the plaintiff.

However, during cross-examination the defense counsel improperly utilized hearsay statements from medical textbooks and articles which the plaintiff’s experts had not accepted as authoritative. It is well settled that on cross-examination an expert witness may be confronted with a passage from a treatise or book which contradicts the opinion the expert witness previously expressed on the stand, only after the expert witness has accepted the treatise or book as authoritative (see, Mark v Colgate Univ., 53 AD2d 884, 886). In light of the numerous instances in which the defense counsel utilized passages of books not accepted as authoritative, we find that the plaintiff was unduly prejudiced and is entitled to a new trial (see, Mark v Colgate Univ., supra, 53 AD2d, at 886). We note that although the defense counsel did not read directly from the books, his questions clearly indicated to the jury that the statements which he read off his notepad were taken from those texts.

We find that the plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ro[445]*445berto, J.), entered August 31, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The defendant David Plotkin was the plaintiffs obstetrician and delivered her daughter Jacqueline on January 21, 1976. Jacqueline is mentally retarded and also suffers from additional maladies. The plaintiff commenced the present action alleging, inter alia, that Dr. Plotkin’s failure to perform a cesarean section and to attach an internal fetal monitor was a departure from accepted medical standards. The jury determined that Dr. Plotkin had not departed from accepted medical standards in his care of the plaintiff.

However, during cross-examination the defense counsel improperly utilized hearsay statements from medical textbooks and articles which the plaintiff’s experts had not accepted as authoritative. It is well settled that on cross-examination an expert witness may be confronted with a passage from a treatise or book which contradicts the opinion the expert witness previously expressed on the stand, only after the expert witness has accepted the treatise or book as authoritative (see, Mark v Colgate Univ., 53 AD2d 884, 886). In light of the numerous instances in which the defense counsel utilized passages of books not accepted as authoritative, we find that the plaintiff was unduly prejudiced and is entitled to a new trial (see, Mark v Colgate Univ., supra, 53 AD2d, at 886). We note that although the defense counsel did not read directly from the books, his questions clearly indicated to the jury that the statements which he read off his notepad were taken from those texts.

We find that the plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 444, 600 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labate-v-plotkin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack