From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medina v. Chownwai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 19, 1995
211 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Mordue, J.).


The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a missing witness charge with respect to the physician who administered plaintiff's CT scan because the testimony that this physician might be expected to give was already in the record through the testimony of the other experts and was therefore cumulative (see, DiOrio v. Scala, 183 A.D.2d 1065, 1067).

The trial court properly determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a jury charge with respect to aggravation of a preexisting injury based, in part, upon the testimony of defendant's medical expert that plaintiff probably suffered from a chronic back condition. In any event, defendant's argument is unpreserved, inasmuch as the sole ground for his objection at trial and his motion to set aside the verdict was that plaintiffs had failed to include such claim in their bill of particulars.

We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Medina v. Chownwai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 19, 1995
211 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Medina v. Chownwai

Case Details

Full title:WILSON MEDINA et al., Respondents, v. SAMROENG CHOWNWAI, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 19, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 561

Citing Cases

Reilly v. Fulmer

Generally, a successive tortfeasor's liability is limited to the separate injury or aggravation caused by his…

Jellema v. 66 West 84th Street Owners Corp.

rdict on the issue of the building owner's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was properly granted upon a…