Lagana v. French

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lagana v. French

145 A.D.2d 541

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 541 (Lagana v. French) 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

Lagana v. French, 145 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated June 30, 1987, which, upon the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, dismissed his complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

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

After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. The plaintiff cross-moved to reopen his case in order to introduce testimony from the defendant Padraic French’s examination before trial which would cure the deficiency in his case. The Trial Judge denied the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to reopen. We disagree.

A Trial Judge has the right to permit the introduction of evidence after the close of the offerer’s case or to prohibit the same (see, Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643, rearg [542]*542denied 50 NY2d 1059). Since the plaintiff specified the evidence he would present if permitted to reopen and since only a short adjournment would have been necessary to prepare the curative proof for presentation to the jury, the motion should have been granted absent a showing of prejudice (see, Kennedy v Peninsula Hosp. Center, 135 AD2d 788; Salzman v Alan S. Rosell, D.D.S., P. C, 129 AD2d 833, 836). The only claim of prejudice which the defendants assert is that it would be unfair to deprive them of victory. The fact that the defendants will have to adjudicate the action on the merits does not warrant a finding of prejudice sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of his day in court (see, CPLR 4011). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan 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 personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated June 30, 1987, which, upon the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, dismissed his complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

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

After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case. The plaintiff cross-moved to reopen his case in order to introduce testimony from the defendant Padraic French’s examination before trial which would cure the deficiency in his case. The Trial Judge denied the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to reopen. We disagree.

A Trial Judge has the right to permit the introduction of evidence after the close of the offerer’s case or to prohibit the same (see, Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643, rearg [542]*542denied 50 NY2d 1059). Since the plaintiff specified the evidence he would present if permitted to reopen and since only a short adjournment would have been necessary to prepare the curative proof for presentation to the jury, the motion should have been granted absent a showing of prejudice (see, Kennedy v Peninsula Hosp. Center, 135 AD2d 788; Salzman v Alan S. Rosell, D.D.S., P. C, 129 AD2d 833, 836). The only claim of prejudice which the defendants assert is that it would be unfair to deprive them of victory. The fact that the defendants will have to adjudicate the action on the merits does not warrant a finding of prejudice sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of his day in court (see, CPLR 4011). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lagana-v-french-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack