From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palchik v. Eisenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 3, 2000.

December 12, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Rivera, J.), entered October 1, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendants' oral motions to strike the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness and pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Pomerance and Collins, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ronald V. Pomerance of counsel), for appellant.

Steve S. Efron, New York, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly struck the testimony of the plaintiff's expert, since it went beyond the scope of the allegations contained in the bill of particulars (see, Ciriello v. Virgues, 156 A.D.2d 417).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for judgment in their favor as a matter of law since the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence (see, Galler v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 99 A.D.2d 720).


Summaries of

Palchik v. Eisenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Palchik v. Eisenberg

Case Details

Full title:FAINA PALCHIK, APPELLANT, v. MORDECHAI EISENBERG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 203

Citing Cases

Kiewit Constructors v. American Bridge Manu.

"A variance is prejudicial where the matters pleaded are such that an adversary could not have been…

Josephine v. Queens

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. The Supreme Court…