Messina v. Renison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Messina v. Renison

21 A.D.2d 803, 250 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579

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

DecidedJune 10, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 803 (Messina v. Renison) 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

Messina v. Renison, 21 A.D.2d 803, 250 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 10, 1962, which granted plaintiffs’ motion and which set aside a verdict in defendants’ favor and directed a new trial. Order reversed, without costs; plaintiffs’ motion denied; and verdict for defendants reinstated. In our opinion, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict (Smith v. McIntyre, 20 A D 2d 711; Pertofsky v. Drucks, 16 A D 2d 690). Moreover, if it be assumed that the learned trial court erred: (a) by permitting the cross-examination of Dr. Greenberg as to a textbook whose authority he did not recognize; and (b) by admitting in evidence the X-ray report of the late Dr. Frucht, we hold that such errors were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, since they involve only the secondary issue of the extent of the injuries, while the jury found for the defendants on the primary issue of liability. In this respect, Roveda v. Weiss (11 A D 2d 745) is clearly distinguishable, since in that ease liability had been conceded and the only issue was the extent of the injuries and the amount of the damages. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 10, 1962, which granted plaintiffs’ motion and which set aside a verdict in defendants’ favor and directed a new trial. Order reversed, without costs; plaintiffs’ motion denied; and verdict for defendants reinstated. In our opinion, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict (Smith v. McIntyre, 20 A D 2d 711; Pertofsky v. Drucks, 16 A D 2d 690). Moreover, if it be assumed that the learned trial court erred: (a) by permitting the cross-examination of Dr. Greenberg as to a textbook whose authority he did not recognize; and (b) by admitting in evidence the X-ray report of the late Dr. Frucht, we hold that such errors were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, since they involve only the secondary issue of the extent of the injuries, while the jury found for the defendants on the primary issue of liability. In this respect, Roveda v. Weiss (11 A D 2d 745) is clearly distinguishable, since in that ease liability had been conceded and the only issue was the extent of the injuries and the amount of the damages. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 803, 250 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messina-v-renison-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack