Paulino v. Marchelletta
This text of 216 A.D.2d 446 (Paulino v. Marchelletta) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated September 2, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict in their favor, did not award them any damages.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court did not [447]*447improvidently exercise its discretion by denying them a continuance to secure the presence of an expert witness (see, Le Jeunne v Baker, 182 AD2d 969; Dunleavy v Samuel, 177 AD2d 540; Balogh v H.R.B. Caterers, 88 AD2d 136). As noted by the trial court, the alleged scheduling problem was of the plaintiffs’ own making.
The trial court properly expunged from the record a medical report since a proper foundation for its admission was never established (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; 58 NY Jur 2d, Evidence and Witnesses, §§ 456-463).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
216 A.D.2d 446, 628 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulino-v-marchelletta-nyappdiv-1995.