Miller v. Kimber

181 A.D.2d 1014
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not err by giving a missing witness charge. A missing witness charge is appropriate when a party fails to call a witness who is within his control and who would be in a position to give substantial, noncumulative testimony (Mashley v Kerr, 47 NY2d 892; Getlin v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Center, 117 AD2d 707, 709; Chandler v Flynn, 111 AD2d 300, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 647). The fact that portions of the missing witness’s records were received into evidence did not render his testimony cumulative (see, Safdie v City of New York, 138 AD2d 361, 362). Additionally, the record indicates that the witness’s medical opinion differed from the other medical testimony offered at trial.

The x-rays should have been admitted into evidence (see, Stein v Lebowitz-Pine View Hotel, 111 AD2d 572, 574, lv denied 65 NY2d 611; CPLR 2306, 4518 [a]). However, the exclusion of the x-rays was harmless error because the x-ray reports, which explained the x-rays, were admitted.

The court’s charge on "serious injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) was proper in all respects. Finally, plaintiff failed to preserve for review his contention that a DOT document was improperly excluded from evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — Negligence.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

Miller v. Kimber, 181 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

181 A.D.2d 1014 (Miller v. Kimber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arpino v. Lombardo
215 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Dukes v. Rotem
191 A.D.2d 35 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)