Piotrowski v. Patel

288 A.D.2d 918, 733 N.Y.S.2d 670
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 2001·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial (see, CPLR 4404 [a]) based upon the allegedly false testimony of defendant’s expert witness. Plaintiffs failed to establish that the evidence supporting their motion could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence or that the “evidence is ‘of such a nature, and is so positive and convincing, that it [would have], in all probability, produce [d] a different result’ ” (Bertan v Richmond Mem. Hosp. & Health Ctr., 131 AD2d 799, 801, quoting Collins v Central Trust Co., 226 App Div 486, 488). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

Piotrowski v. Patel, 288 A.D.2d 918, 733 N.Y.S.2d 670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

288 A.D.2d 918 (Piotrowski v. Patel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Collins v. Central Trust Co.
226 A.D. 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1929)
Bertan v. Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center
131 A.D.2d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)