Norton v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norton v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

94 A.D.3d 677, 943 N.Y.S.2d 82

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

DecidedApril 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 677 (Norton v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Norton v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 94 A.D.3d 677, 943 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 21, 2011, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court did not err in declining to charge defendant’s former employee as an interested witness in the absence of any evidence that his testimony was biased or that he was personally interested in the outcome of the matter (cf. Lowenstein v Normandy Group, LLC, 51 AD3d 517 [2008] [former employee of defendant and participant in accident who had motive to shield himself from blame properly charged as interested witness]). Any error attributable to the failure to charge the jury that defendant had statutory responsibility for the maintenance of the subject sidewalk is harmless in light of defendant’s admitted responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining, on the eve of trial, to so order a subpoena that could have been issued by counsel and sought items that could have been obtained during discovery (see CPLR 2302; Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 309, 309-310 [2008]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 21, 2011, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court did not err in declining to charge defendant’s former employee as an interested witness in the absence of any evidence that his testimony was biased or that he was personally interested in the outcome of the matter (cf. Lowenstein v Normandy Group, LLC, 51 AD3d 517 [2008] [former employee of defendant and participant in accident who had motive to shield himself from blame properly charged as interested witness]). Any error attributable to the failure to charge the jury that defendant had statutory responsibility for the maintenance of the subject sidewalk is harmless in light of defendant’s admitted responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining, on the eve of trial, to so order a subpoena that could have been issued by counsel and sought items that could have been obtained during discovery (see CPLR 2302; Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 309, 309-310 [2008]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 677, 943 N.Y.S.2d 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack