From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ciocca v. Park

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 20, 2005
839 N.E.2d 892 (N.Y. 2005)

Opinion

22.

Decided October 20, 2005.

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered August 11, 2005. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Clinton County (Patrick R. McGill, J.), which had granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' case.

Ciocca v. Park, 21 AD3d 671, affirmed.

Mark A. Schneider, Plattsburgh, for appellants.

Law Office of Paul G. Hanson, Albany ( Paul G. Hanson of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that plaintiff failed to properly demonstrate causation. Plaintiff did not lay an adequate foundation for the testimony of his experts that plaintiff's injuries were caused by acute trauma as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, defendants' motion for a directed verdict was properly granted.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Ciocca v. Park

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 20, 2005
839 N.E.2d 892 (N.Y. 2005)
Case details for

Ciocca v. Park

Case Details

Full title:RAFFAELE CIOCCA et al., Appellants, v. SANG K. PARK et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 20, 2005

Citations

839 N.E.2d 892 (N.Y. 2005)
839 N.E.2d 892
805 N.Y.S.2d 539

Citing Cases

State of New York v. J.A

Significantly, this is not a case where the expert `essentially served as [a] conduit for the testimony of…

Sherry v. North Colonie

Further, we conclude that Supreme Court correctly denied defendants' motion at the close of evidence in the…