Spanier v. New York City Transit Authority

222 A.D.2d 219, 634 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 219 (Spanier v. New York City Transit 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
Spanier v. New York City Transit Authority, 222 A.D.2d 219, 634 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on or about June 8, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside so much of the jury verdict as awarded $5,000 in damages to plaintiff and for a new trial on the issue of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly allowed defendant’s counsel to ask plaintiff’s treating physician about prior allegations of improper billing, and other misconduct, since those allegations had a bearing on the doctor’s credibility (Badr v Hogan, 75 NY2d 629, 634). Plaintiff complains about counsel’s reference during cross examination to the disciplinary statement of charges brought against the doctor with respect to this alleged [220]*220misconduct. However, that document, which was marked only for identification, was only referred to in an appropriate effort to refresh the doctor’s memory as to the specific charges that had been brought; the document was not used to refute his testimony on this collateral matter (see, supra, at 635). Plaintiff’s claim that the improper acts were too remote in time is unpersuasive, given that the disciplinary matter was resolved only three years before this trial was held.

We also reject plaintiff’s argument that the jury award was "unconscionably inadequate”. The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendant’s expert that the fracture in the left foot was not as extensive as claimed by plaintiff and that the tendon damage in the right foot was not caused by the incident upon which this action is based.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

McGill v. Whitney Museum of Am. Art
2024 NY Slip Op 51271(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Montas v. Abouel-Ela
2017 NY Slip Op 7413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Cipriano v. Ho
29 Misc. 3d 952 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Castillo v. 62-25 30th Avenue Realty, LLC
74 A.D.3d 1116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Torres v. Ashmawy
24 Misc. 3d 506 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Shainwald v. Barasch
29 A.D.3d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Williams v. Halpern
25 A.D.3d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
D'Amato v. Access Manufacturing, Inc.
305 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hornell Brewing Co. v. Spry
174 Misc. 2d 451 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 219, 634 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spanier-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1995.