Sperin v. Good Samaritan Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sperin v. Good Samaritan Hospital

250 A.D.2d 755, 672 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5754

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 755 (Sperin v. Good Samaritan Hospital) 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

Sperin v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 250 A.D.2d 755, 672 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered January 2, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Good Samaritan Hospital, William A. Maiorino, and Pallotta-Maiorino-Schwartz, P. C., dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court did not err in precluding them from attempting to elicit information from a defense witness regarding the content of medical texts, since what was sought to be adduced would have been improper hearsay (see, Winant v Carras, 208 AD2d 618, 619; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-313 [Farrell 11th ed]).

[756]*756Upon our review of the record and the matters highlighted by the plaintiffs, we conclude that the plaintiffs were not denied a fair trial (see, e.g., Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 192 AD2d 228, 230-231, affd 84 NY2d 60; compare, Di Michel v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 NY2d 184, 198-200, cert denied sub nom. Poole v Consolidated Rail Corp., 510 US 816; Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 174 AD2d 268). To the extent that the plaintiffs’ remaining contention has merit, we find the alleged error to be harmless. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered January 2, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Good Samaritan Hospital, William A. Maiorino, and Pallotta-Maiorino-Schwartz, P. C., dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court did not err in precluding them from attempting to elicit information from a defense witness regarding the content of medical texts, since what was sought to be adduced would have been improper hearsay (see, Winant v Carras, 208 AD2d 618, 619; see also, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-313 [Farrell 11th ed]).

[756]*756Upon our review of the record and the matters highlighted by the plaintiffs, we conclude that the plaintiffs were not denied a fair trial (see, e.g., Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 192 AD2d 228, 230-231, affd 84 NY2d 60; compare, Di Michel v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 NY2d 184, 198-200, cert denied sub nom. Poole v Consolidated Rail Corp., 510 US 816; Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 174 AD2d 268). To the extent that the plaintiffs’ remaining contention has merit, we find the alleged error to be harmless. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 755, 672 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sperin-v-good-samaritan-hospital-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack