Tirado v. 2188 Realty Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tirado v. 2188 Realty Ltd.

216 A.D.2d 14, 627 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5883

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 14 (Tirado v. 2188 Realty Ltd.) 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

Tirado v. 2188 Realty Ltd., 216 A.D.2d 14, 627 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered May 3, 1993, which, upon a jury’s verdict, awarded judgment for defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claimed that his injuries were the result of plaster which fell from the ceiling of an apartment in defendant’s building, resulting in injuries to his neck. However, the proof at trial demonstrated that the injury most likely was not caused as plaintiff claimed, and thus the jury verdict was well based.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he was not denied a fair trial. Dr. Dutta was properly allowed to testify as to the manner in which the injuries were sustained since this doctor was not only the treating physician, but also had been a medical examiner. Accordingly, his opinion was based on facts in the record and his own personal observation and therefore was properly received (see, Hambseh v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 725). Further, the hospital records which contained references to drug and alcohol use were admitted on plaintiff’s direct case and such references were necessary for the treatment of plaintiff, who required anesthesia for an operation (CPLR 4518).

We have considered plaintiff’s claims that the trial court was biased and that the defense counsel’s summation comments [15]*15were improper and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered May 3, 1993, which, upon a jury’s verdict, awarded judgment for defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claimed that his injuries were the result of plaster which fell from the ceiling of an apartment in defendant’s building, resulting in injuries to his neck. However, the proof at trial demonstrated that the injury most likely was not caused as plaintiff claimed, and thus the jury verdict was well based.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he was not denied a fair trial. Dr. Dutta was properly allowed to testify as to the manner in which the injuries were sustained since this doctor was not only the treating physician, but also had been a medical examiner. Accordingly, his opinion was based on facts in the record and his own personal observation and therefore was properly received (see, Hambseh v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 725). Further, the hospital records which contained references to drug and alcohol use were admitted on plaintiff’s direct case and such references were necessary for the treatment of plaintiff, who required anesthesia for an operation (CPLR 4518).

We have considered plaintiff’s claims that the trial court was biased and that the defense counsel’s summation comments [15]*15were improper and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 14, 627 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tirado-v-2188-realty-ltd-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack