Rodriguez v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Port Authority

243 A.D.2d 394, 664 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 394 (Rodriguez v. Port Authority) 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

Rodriguez v. Port Authority, 243 A.D.2d 394, 664 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Coutant, J.), entered October 5, 1995, after a jury trial, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“To set aside a jury’s verdict there must be no valid line of reasoning which would lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury based on the evidence presented” (Nelson v Town of Glenville, 220 AD2d 955, 957, lv denied 87 NY2d 807). In this personal injury action, it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict, that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the passenger terminal pickup area but that such negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, “was without a factual basis or palpably wrong” (supra, at 957).

Based on the testimony of the admitting nurse, the court properly admitted the history portion of the hospital records as an admission or under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see, Barzaghi v Maislin Transp., 115 AD2d 679, 687, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 852). The testimony regarding the time of the flight was not so misleading as to confuse the jury, especially in light of plaintiff’s testimony and counsel summation emphasizing its flaws. In any event, based upon [395]*395review of the entire record, any error in its admission was harmless (see, Cotter v Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, 108 AD2d 173, 180). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Coutant, J.), entered October 5, 1995, after a jury trial, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“To set aside a jury’s verdict there must be no valid line of reasoning which would lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury based on the evidence presented” (Nelson v Town of Glenville, 220 AD2d 955, 957, lv denied 87 NY2d 807). In this personal injury action, it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict, that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the passenger terminal pickup area but that such negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, “was without a factual basis or palpably wrong” (supra, at 957).

Based on the testimony of the admitting nurse, the court properly admitted the history portion of the hospital records as an admission or under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see, Barzaghi v Maislin Transp., 115 AD2d 679, 687, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 852). The testimony regarding the time of the flight was not so misleading as to confuse the jury, especially in light of plaintiff’s testimony and counsel summation emphasizing its flaws. In any event, based upon [395]*395review of the entire record, any error in its admission was harmless (see, Cotter v Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, 108 AD2d 173, 180). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 394, 664 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack