Morton v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morton v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

8 A.D.3d 122, 779 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8546

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

DecidedJune 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 122 (Morton v. New York City Health & Hospitals 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

Morton v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 8 A.D.3d 122, 779 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered April 29, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury [123]*123that it could draw adverse inferences against plaintiff based on his failure to call two of his treating physicians and to introduce MRIs performed shortly after the accident. However, because the missing physicians and MRIs pertained only to damages, and because the jury, which found defendants negligent but that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries, never reached the issue of damages, the error, if any, was harmless and may not serve as a ground for a new trial (Gilbert v Luvin, 286 AD2d 600 [2001]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered April 29, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury [123]*123that it could draw adverse inferences against plaintiff based on his failure to call two of his treating physicians and to introduce MRIs performed shortly after the accident. However, because the missing physicians and MRIs pertained only to damages, and because the jury, which found defendants negligent but that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries, never reached the issue of damages, the error, if any, was harmless and may not serve as a ground for a new trial (Gilbert v Luvin, 286 AD2d 600 [2001]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 122, 779 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack