White v. Luna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Luna

139 A.D.3d 939, 30 N.Y.S.3d 575

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

DecidedMay 18, 2016

Docket2014-10268

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 939 (White v. Luna) 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

White v. Luna, 139 A.D.3d 939, 30 N.Y.S.3d 575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Victor Luna and Ramiro Luna appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated August 7, 2014, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff Kirk White the principal sum of $400,000, is in favor of the plaintiff Kirk White and against them in the principal sum of $400,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on the issue of damages only.

During the damages phase of this bifurcated trial, the Supreme Court precluded the appellants’ biomechanical engineer from testifying. The determination of a witness’s qualification to testify as an expert rests in the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion (see Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839, 840 [1985]; Steinbuch v Stern, 2 AD3d 709, 710 [2003]). Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants the opportunity to lay a foundation for the proposed expert testimony of their biomechanical engineer (see Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839 [1985]; Wichy v City of New York, 304 AD2d 755, 756 [2003]). Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of damages is warranted.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Connolly, 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 defendants Victor Luna and Ramiro Luna appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated August 7, 2014, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff Kirk White the principal sum of $400,000, is in favor of the plaintiff Kirk White and against them in the principal sum of $400,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on the issue of damages only.

During the damages phase of this bifurcated trial, the Supreme Court precluded the appellants’ biomechanical engineer from testifying. The determination of a witness’s qualification to testify as an expert rests in the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion (see Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839, 840 [1985]; Steinbuch v Stern, 2 AD3d 709, 710 [2003]). Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants the opportunity to lay a foundation for the proposed expert testimony of their biomechanical engineer (see Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839 [1985]; Wichy v City of New York, 304 AD2d 755, 756 [2003]). Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of damages is warranted.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 939, 30 N.Y.S.3d 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-luna-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack