Timmons v. Hecker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Timmons v. Hecker

110 A.D.2d 762, 488 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48663

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

DecidedApril 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 762 (Timmons v. Hecker) 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

Timmons v. Hecker, 110 A.D.2d 762, 488 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[763]*763Trial Term correctly denied the motion by plaintiff’s counsel to strike the testimony of the pathologist and toxicologist based on defendant’s failure to disclose the names of those witnesses during discovery. The toxicologist and pathologist testified as expert witnesses; as such, their names would ordinarily not be discoverable (see, Kincaid v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 79 AD2d 1094,1095; Siegel, NY Prac § 349). Moreover, the toxicologist’s report was independently admissible under County Law § 674 (3) (b) (see also, Short v Ohland Meat Corp., 108 Misc 2d 338 [Niehoff, J.]). As to any purported deficiencies in the chain of custody relating to blood samples taken from the deceased, such matters went to the weight and not to the admissibility of the resulting report (see, People v Capers, 105 AD2d 842).

Although certain errors occurred in the court’s charge, we do not view them as rising to a degree of significance sufficient to merit reversal on this record. Moreover, the court’s charge, as a whole, amply and correctly apprised the jury concerning comparative negligence and proximate cause. Finally, the verdict was clearly not against the weight of the credible evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

[763]*763Trial Term correctly denied the motion by plaintiff’s counsel to strike the testimony of the pathologist and toxicologist based on defendant’s failure to disclose the names of those witnesses during discovery. The toxicologist and pathologist testified as expert witnesses; as such, their names would ordinarily not be discoverable (see, Kincaid v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 79 AD2d 1094,1095; Siegel, NY Prac § 349). Moreover, the toxicologist’s report was independently admissible under County Law § 674 (3) (b) (see also, Short v Ohland Meat Corp., 108 Misc 2d 338 [Niehoff, J.]). As to any purported deficiencies in the chain of custody relating to blood samples taken from the deceased, such matters went to the weight and not to the admissibility of the resulting report (see, People v Capers, 105 AD2d 842).

Although certain errors occurred in the court’s charge, we do not view them as rising to a degree of significance sufficient to merit reversal on this record. Moreover, the court’s charge, as a whole, amply and correctly apprised the jury concerning comparative negligence and proximate cause. Finally, the verdict was clearly not against the weight of the credible evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 762, 488 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timmons-v-hecker-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack