Munoz v. 608-610 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. 608-610 Realty Corp.

194 A.D.2d 496, 599 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6795

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

DecidedJune 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 496 (Munoz v. 608-610 Realty 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

Munoz v. 608-610 Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 496, 599 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about February 6, 1992, upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, awarding damages of $15,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The report of plaintiffs consulting surgeon was evidence of a kind accepted in the medical profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion (see, Borden v Brady, 92 AD2d 983; Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726), and thus defense counsel’s reference to the report in cross-examining plaintiffs treating physician, and use of the findings contained therein in propounding hypothetical questions to one of defendants’ medical experts, was proper and does not warrant the granting of a new trial on the issue of damages. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about February 6, 1992, upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, awarding damages of $15,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The report of plaintiffs consulting surgeon was evidence of a kind accepted in the medical profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion (see, Borden v Brady, 92 AD2d 983; Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726), and thus defense counsel’s reference to the report in cross-examining plaintiffs treating physician, and use of the findings contained therein in propounding hypothetical questions to one of defendants’ medical experts, was proper and does not warrant the granting of a new trial on the issue of damages. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 496, 599 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-608-610-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack