Ratel v. Pannone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ratel v. Pannone

195 A.D.2d 450, 601 N.Y.S.2d 817

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 450 (Ratel v. Pannone) 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

Ratel v. Pannone, 195 A.D.2d 450, 601 N.Y.S.2d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), entered July 27, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissed the complaint.

[451]*451Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants were improperly permitted to offer into evidence letters written by the plaintiff’s expert witness which sought to impeach the expert’s testimony on an issue that was collateral. However, the plaintiff failed to object to the evidence, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, CPLR 4017). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), entered July 27, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissed the complaint.

[451]*451Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants were improperly permitted to offer into evidence letters written by the plaintiff’s expert witness which sought to impeach the expert’s testimony on an issue that was collateral. However, the plaintiff failed to object to the evidence, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, CPLR 4017). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 450, 601 N.Y.S.2d 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratel-v-pannone-nyappdiv-1993.