McDermott v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDermott v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

293 A.D.2d 455, 739 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3337

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

DecidedApril 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 455 (McDermott v. Costco Wholesale Corp.) 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

McDermott v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 293 A.D.2d 455, 739 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rosenberg, J.), dated October 26, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $99,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s determination not to strike the testimony of James McDermott’s treating physician was made for good cause shown and in the interest of justice, and was a provident exercise of discretion (see Rivera v City of New York, 107 AD2d 331, 335).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Crane, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rosenberg, J.), dated October 26, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $99,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s determination not to strike the testimony of James McDermott’s treating physician was made for good cause shown and in the interest of justice, and was a provident exercise of discretion (see Rivera v City of New York, 107 AD2d 331, 335).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 455, 739 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermott-v-costco-wholesale-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack