Rojas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rojas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 188, 679 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11158

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 188 (Rojas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.) 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

Rojas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 254 A.D.2d 188, 679 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Relihan, Jr., J.), entered October 9, 1997, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff a total of $141,365.21, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the court improperly allowed plaintiffs expert to describe a report by a nonwitness physician was waived when defendant’s trial counsel expressly consented to the use of the report by the witness. In any event, the limited use of the report was not inappropriate under the circumstances, even though the report itself had not been received in evidence (cf., O’Shea v Sarro, 106 AD2d 435, 437). Nor did the trial court err in denying defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Given the use of the above-mentioned report in the testimony of plaintiffs expert, the testimony of the doctor who had written the report would have been cumulative (see, Jellema v 66 W. 84th St. Owners Corp., 248 AD2d 117). We note in this connection that both sides’ experts fully described the report (see, Diorio v Scala, 183 AD2d 1065, 1067). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Relihan, Jr., J.), entered October 9, 1997, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff a total of $141,365.21, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the court improperly allowed plaintiffs expert to describe a report by a nonwitness physician was waived when defendant’s trial counsel expressly consented to the use of the report by the witness. In any event, the limited use of the report was not inappropriate under the circumstances, even though the report itself had not been received in evidence (cf., O’Shea v Sarro, 106 AD2d 435, 437). Nor did the trial court err in denying defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Given the use of the above-mentioned report in the testimony of plaintiffs expert, the testimony of the doctor who had written the report would have been cumulative (see, Jellema v 66 W. 84th St. Owners Corp., 248 AD2d 117). We note in this connection that both sides’ experts fully described the report (see, Diorio v Scala, 183 AD2d 1065, 1067). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 188, 679 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rojas-v-greyhound-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack