Stewart v. Avasso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. Avasso

301 A.D.2d 643, 754 N.Y.S.2d 551

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 643 (Stewart v. Avasso) 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

Stewart v. Avasso, 301 A.D.2d 643, 754 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered March 6, 2002, which, upon granting the defendants’ application to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness, and upon granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff’s case, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly precluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, an accident reconstructionist (see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430; Crawford v Koloniaris, 199 AD2d 235). Where, as here, an expert’s opinion is speculative and lacks a factual basis, it is inadmissible and should be precluded (see Quinn v Artcraft Constr., 203 AD2d 444, 445).

The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of negligence. To meet the burden of proving a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show that the defendants’ negligence, if any, was a “substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Co., 51 NY2d 308, 315). The plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Santucci, J.P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered March 6, 2002, which, upon granting the defendants’ application to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness, and upon granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff’s case, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly precluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, an accident reconstructionist (see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430; Crawford v Koloniaris, 199 AD2d 235). Where, as here, an expert’s opinion is speculative and lacks a factual basis, it is inadmissible and should be precluded (see Quinn v Artcraft Constr., 203 AD2d 444, 445).

The Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of negligence. To meet the burden of proving a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show that the defendants’ negligence, if any, was a “substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Co., 51 NY2d 308, 315). The plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Santucci, J.P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 643, 754 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-avasso-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack