Meagher v. ARA Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meagher v. ARA Services

235 A.D.2d 404, 652 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 167

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 404 (Meagher v. ARA Services) 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

Meagher v. ARA Services, 235 A.D.2d 404, 652 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered September 25, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants ARA Services and Iona College and against the plaintiff, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly limited testimony regarding a prior accident to demonstrate notice of a defective condition. The plaintiff failed to make a "showing that the relevant conditions of the subject accident and the previous one were substantially the same” (Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 NY2d 927, 929; Facci v General Elec. Co., 192 AD2d 991).

In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by qualifying a defense witness as an expert since it was established that the witness possessed the requisite skill, [405]*405training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it could be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered was reliable (see, Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455; Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 NY2d 410; see also, Barker & Alexander, Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 702.1 [e], at 516).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered September 25, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants ARA Services and Iona College and against the plaintiff, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly limited testimony regarding a prior accident to demonstrate notice of a defective condition. The plaintiff failed to make a "showing that the relevant conditions of the subject accident and the previous one were substantially the same” (Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 NY2d 927, 929; Facci v General Elec. Co., 192 AD2d 991).

In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by qualifying a defense witness as an expert since it was established that the witness possessed the requisite skill, [405]*405training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it could be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered was reliable (see, Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455; Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 NY2d 410; see also, Barker & Alexander, Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 702.1 [e], at 516).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 404, 652 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meagher-v-ara-services-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack