Pagan v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagan v. Ramirez

80 A.D.2d 848, 444 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10680

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 848 (Pagan v. Ramirez) 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

Pagan v. Ramirez, 80 A.D.2d 848, 444 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 28, 1980, which is in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $70,000, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The defense presented no evidence to contradict the testimony offered by plaintiff’s expert physician and it was not demonstrated that plaintiff’s former physician was within his control or was willing to provide testimony on plaintiff’s behalf. It was thus proper for the Trial Justice to refuse defendants’ request for a “missing witness” charge based on plaintiff’s failure to call his former doctor to testify (see Noce v. Kaufman, 2 NY2d 347; Oswald v Heaney, 70 AD2d 653). Furthermore, the amount of damages awarded by the jury (as diminished pursuant to the stipulation apportioning liability) was not excessive. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 28, 1980, which is in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $70,000, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The defense presented no evidence to contradict the testimony offered by plaintiff’s expert physician and it was not demonstrated that plaintiff’s former physician was within his control or was willing to provide testimony on plaintiff’s behalf. It was thus proper for the Trial Justice to refuse defendants’ request for a “missing witness” charge based on plaintiff’s failure to call his former doctor to testify (see Noce v. Kaufman, 2 NY2d 347; Oswald v Heaney, 70 AD2d 653). Furthermore, the amount of damages awarded by the jury (as diminished pursuant to the stipulation apportioning liability) was not excessive. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 848, 444 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagan-v-ramirez-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack