Padovani v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padovani v. Miller

44 A.D.3d 917, 843 N.Y.S.2d 518

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 917 (Padovani v. Miller) 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

Padovani v. Miller, 44 A.D.3d 917, 843 N.Y.S.2d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated August 25, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court erred in excluding from evidence a portion of the deposition testimony of the defendant Gerald E. [918]*918Miller (see CPLR 3117 [a] [2]; Fanek v City of Yonkers, 287 AD2d 683 [2001]) and in prospectively precluding the parties from objecting to summations (see Roma v Blaustein, 44 AD2d 576, 577 [1974]). Nevertheless, we decline to reverse the judgment in favor of the defendants because the errors were harmless (see CPLR 2002; Maione v Pindyck, 32 AD3d 827 [2006]; Gilbert v Luvin, 286 AD2d 600 [2001]; Sperin v Good Samaritan Hosp., 250 AD2d 755 [1998]; Lauter v Village of Great Neck, 231 AD2d 553, 555 [1996]; see also Mullen v Eswar, 233 AD2d 376 [1996]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated August 25, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court erred in excluding from evidence a portion of the deposition testimony of the defendant Gerald E. [918]*918Miller (see CPLR 3117 [a] [2]; Fanek v City of Yonkers, 287 AD2d 683 [2001]) and in prospectively precluding the parties from objecting to summations (see Roma v Blaustein, 44 AD2d 576, 577 [1974]). Nevertheless, we decline to reverse the judgment in favor of the defendants because the errors were harmless (see CPLR 2002; Maione v Pindyck, 32 AD3d 827 [2006]; Gilbert v Luvin, 286 AD2d 600 [2001]; Sperin v Good Samaritan Hosp., 250 AD2d 755 [1998]; Lauter v Village of Great Neck, 231 AD2d 553, 555 [1996]; see also Mullen v Eswar, 233 AD2d 376 [1996]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 917, 843 N.Y.S.2d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padovani-v-miller-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack