Pickering v. Freedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pickering v. Freedman

32 A.D.2d 649, 300 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4033

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

DecidedMay 12, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 649 (Pickering v. Freedman) 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

Pickering v. Freedman, 32 A.D.2d 649, 300 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 19, 1968, affirmed, with one bill of costs against defendants filing separate briefs, jointly. In our opinion, the jury’s verdict on the issues of liability was amply supported by the evidence. Its finding against “ both defendants ” was not ambiguous under the circumstances, the trial court having charged them to consider both [650]*650the operator of one of the vehicles involved in the collision and the owner thereof (defendants Freedman) as one defendant. If defendant Simons had any lingering doubts, he should have requested a poll of the jury on that issue after the conclusion of the damages phase of this split-trial, the latter stage having been tried a few days later before the same jury. As this was a two-stage trial before one and the same jury, there was no error in the trial court’s refusal to allow a jury poll at the end of the liability phase. Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to grant defendant Simons a short adjournment to await a witness scheduled to appear one- and-a-half hours later. Not only did his attorney fail to make an offer of proof to the trial court, but it is apparent no proper justification, such as surprise or the need of a doctor to attend to his patients, exists in this ease for the requested delay in the conduct of the trial (see, e.g., Murphy v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 492; Alteresko v. Phillips, 208 App. Div. 171). Insofar as the damages stage of this trial is concerned, we find that the report of the Freedman defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Altman, was improperly received in evidence upon plaintiff’s ease. . Dr. Altman was eoncededly unavailable to testifiy upon the trial, having suffered a stroke; and the Freedmans presented no evidence in contradiction of plaintiff’s medical claims. Although the report was secured by plaintiff prior to trial pursuant to CPLR 3121 (subd. [b]), it was inadmissible hearsay; and it was improper for plaintiff to employ the report as evidence in chief on her own ease and imply that the Freedmans .were bound thereby. Nevertheless, we do not believe the improper admission of this report requires a new trial on the issue of damages. Insofar as the report is adverse to defendant’s position, it merely reiterates the obvious, namely, that plaintiff’s left upper eyelid is scarred and that her eyeball remains slightly exposed when she closes the lid. As the jury saw these conditions for themselves, defendants could not have been unduly prejudiced by their consideration of the report. Nor do we find the verdict in plaintiff’s favor to be excessive under the facts of this ease. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., concurs in result.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 19, 1968, affirmed, with one bill of costs against defendants filing separate briefs, jointly. In our opinion, the jury’s verdict on the issues of liability was amply supported by the evidence. Its finding against “ both defendants ” was not ambiguous under the circumstances, the trial court having charged them to consider both [650]*650the operator of one of the vehicles involved in the collision and the owner thereof (defendants Freedman) as one defendant. If defendant Simons had any lingering doubts, he should have requested a poll of the jury on that issue after the conclusion of the damages phase of this split-trial, the latter stage having been tried a few days later before the same jury. As this was a two-stage trial before one and the same jury, there was no error in the trial court’s refusal to allow a jury poll at the end of the liability phase. Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to grant defendant Simons a short adjournment to await a witness scheduled to appear one- and-a-half hours later. Not only did his attorney fail to make an offer of proof to the trial court, but it is apparent no proper justification, such as surprise or the need of a doctor to attend to his patients, exists in this ease for the requested delay in the conduct of the trial (see, e.g., Murphy v. City of New York, 273 App. Div. 492; Alteresko v. Phillips, 208 App. Div. 171). Insofar as the damages stage of this trial is concerned, we find that the report of the Freedman defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Altman, was improperly received in evidence upon plaintiff’s ease. . Dr. Altman was eoncededly unavailable to testifiy upon the trial, having suffered a stroke; and the Freedmans presented no evidence in contradiction of plaintiff’s medical claims. Although the report was secured by plaintiff prior to trial pursuant to CPLR 3121 (subd. [b]), it was inadmissible hearsay; and it was improper for plaintiff to employ the report as evidence in chief on her own ease and imply that the Freedmans .were bound thereby. Nevertheless, we do not believe the improper admission of this report requires a new trial on the issue of damages. Insofar as the report is adverse to defendant’s position, it merely reiterates the obvious, namely, that plaintiff’s left upper eyelid is scarred and that her eyeball remains slightly exposed when she closes the lid. As the jury saw these conditions for themselves, defendants could not have been unduly prejudiced by their consideration of the report. Nor do we find the verdict in plaintiff’s favor to be excessive under the facts of this ease. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 649, 300 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickering-v-freedman-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack