Matteson v. City of Dunkirk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matteson v. City of Dunkirk

261 A.D.2d 969, 689 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5113

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 969 (Matteson v. City of Dunkirk) 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

Matteson v. City of Dunkirk, 261 A.D.2d 969, 689 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony pertaining to future lost earnings upon the new trial. Following the first trial, the court granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict insofar as it awarded plaintiff no damages for future pain and suffering and granted a new trial solely on that issue. At the first trial, the court did not submit to the jury the issue of future lost earnings, and no appeal was taken by plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff is precluded by the law of the case from relitigating the issue of future lost earnings (see, Outeiral v Otis El., 220 AD2d 255; see also, Witmer v Smith, 193 AD2d 1080). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Preclusion.) Present — Greén, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony pertaining to future lost earnings upon the new trial. Following the first trial, the court granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict insofar as it awarded plaintiff no damages for future pain and suffering and granted a new trial solely on that issue. At the first trial, the court did not submit to the jury the issue of future lost earnings, and no appeal was taken by plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff is precluded by the law of the case from relitigating the issue of future lost earnings (see, Outeiral v Otis El., 220 AD2d 255; see also, Witmer v Smith, 193 AD2d 1080). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Preclusion.) Present — Greén, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 969, 689 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matteson-v-city-of-dunkirk-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack