Schwartz v. Tab Operating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Tab Operating Co.

239 A.D.2d 244, 657 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5181

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

DecidedMay 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 244 (Schwartz v. Tab Operating Co.) 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

Schwartz v. Tab Operating Co., 239 A.D.2d 244, 657 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J., and a jury), entered April 16, 1996, awarding plaintiff damages in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of being struck by an automobile, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s ruling not to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert for noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Lesser v Lacher, 203 AD2d 181), where such testimony was limited to what was contained in the expert’s records that defendants could have obtained well before trial, having been furnished with authorizations therefor. Thus, defendants could have been surprised or otherwise prejudiced only because they did not avail themselves of such authorizations. Nor do we find reversible error in the trial court’s permitting this expert to testify that the accident in question was the cause of plaintiff’s injury and that the injury was the cause of her symptomology (cf., Edge-water Apts, v Flynn, 216 AD2d 53, 55). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J., and a jury), entered April 16, 1996, awarding plaintiff damages in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of being struck by an automobile, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s ruling not to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert for noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Lesser v Lacher, 203 AD2d 181), where such testimony was limited to what was contained in the expert’s records that defendants could have obtained well before trial, having been furnished with authorizations therefor. Thus, defendants could have been surprised or otherwise prejudiced only because they did not avail themselves of such authorizations. Nor do we find reversible error in the trial court’s permitting this expert to testify that the accident in question was the cause of plaintiff’s injury and that the injury was the cause of her symptomology (cf., Edge-water Apts, v Flynn, 216 AD2d 53, 55). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 244, 657 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-tab-operating-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack