Redmond v. Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Redmond v. Chin

297 A.D.2d 368, 746 N.Y.2d 612, 746 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8127

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

DecidedAugust 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 368 (Redmond v. Chin) 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

Redmond v. Chin, 297 A.D.2d 368, 746 N.Y.2d 612, 746 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants contend that the trial court erred in giving a missing witness charge with respect to the physicians who examined the plaintiff on their behalf. We disagree. “When a doctor who examines the plaintiff on the defendant’s behalf [369]*369does not testify at trial, an inference generally arises that the testimony of such witness would be unfavorable to the defendant unless he [or she] demonstrates that the testimony would be merely cumulative, the witness was unavailable or not under his [or her] control, or that the witness would address matters not in dispute” (Brueckner v Simpson, 206 AD2d 448; see Arroyo v City of New York, 171 AD2d 541, 544; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671, 672). Since the defendants failed to make this required showing, the trial court properly granted the plaintiffs request for a missing witness charge (see Placakis v City of New York, 289 AD2d 551, 552-553; Iovine v City of New York, 286 AD2d 372, 373; Staltare v D&B Distribs., 281 AD2d 469, 470; Jordan v Donat, 255 AD2d 242, 243; Ghize v Kinney Drugs, 177 AD2d 784, 785).

The defendants’ remaining contentions do not require reversal. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants contend that the trial court erred in giving a missing witness charge with respect to the physicians who examined the plaintiff on their behalf. We disagree. “When a doctor who examines the plaintiff on the defendant’s behalf [369]*369does not testify at trial, an inference generally arises that the testimony of such witness would be unfavorable to the defendant unless he [or she] demonstrates that the testimony would be merely cumulative, the witness was unavailable or not under his [or her] control, or that the witness would address matters not in dispute” (Brueckner v Simpson, 206 AD2d 448; see Arroyo v City of New York, 171 AD2d 541, 544; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671, 672). Since the defendants failed to make this required showing, the trial court properly granted the plaintiffs request for a missing witness charge (see Placakis v City of New York, 289 AD2d 551, 552-553; Iovine v City of New York, 286 AD2d 372, 373; Staltare v D&B Distribs., 281 AD2d 469, 470; Jordan v Donat, 255 AD2d 242, 243; Ghize v Kinney Drugs, 177 AD2d 784, 785).

The defendants’ remaining contentions do not require reversal. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 368, 746 N.Y.2d 612, 746 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redmond-v-chin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack