People v. Cadell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cadell

256 A.D.2d 134, 683 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13758

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 134 (People v. Cadell) 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

People v. Cadell, 256 A.D.2d 134, 683 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered July 10, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing her, as a second felony oifender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding that a pediatrician with 16 years experience, who had treated children with burns of the same nature as those received by the complainant, and whose professional instruction to medical students included how to determine the cause of burns, possessed the requisite skill and experience to be considered a medical expert on the subject of the causation of the burns (see, Fuller v Preis, 35 NY2d 425, 431; Edgewater Apts. v Flynn, 216 AD2d 53). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered July 10, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing her, as a second felony oifender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding that a pediatrician with 16 years experience, who had treated children with burns of the same nature as those received by the complainant, and whose professional instruction to medical students included how to determine the cause of burns, possessed the requisite skill and experience to be considered a medical expert on the subject of the causation of the burns (see, Fuller v Preis, 35 NY2d 425, 431; Edgewater Apts. v Flynn, 216 AD2d 53). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 134, 683 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cadell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack