Opinion
2017-05030 Index No. 7285/12
11-01-2023
Bhojpattie RAMRATTAN, etc., appellant, v. RESORTS WORLD CASINO, et al., respondents.
Soffey & Soffey LLC, Garden City, NY (Joseph E. Soffey of counsel), for appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, NY (Benjamin Greenfield and Larry H. Lum of counsel), for respondents.
Soffey & Soffey LLC, Garden City, NY (Joseph E. Soffey of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, NY (Benjamin Greenfield and Larry H. Lum of counsel), for respondents.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LARA J. GENOVESI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert L. Nahman, J.), entered March 15, 2017. The judgment, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff's decedent, Seeraj Ramrattan, allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on premises owned by the defendants. Following a trial on the issue of liability, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants. On March 15, 2017, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
As an initial matter, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff's challenge to the cross-examination which sought to establish the plaintiff's litigious nature is preserved for appellate review. This cross-examination was highly improper (see O'Neil v. Klass, 36 A.D.3d 677, 678, 829 N.Y.S.2d 144 ; Rodolitz v. Boston–Old Colony Ins. Co., 74 A.D.2d 821, 821, 425 N.Y.S.2d 353 ). However, any error in the admission of such testimony was harmless, as we are satisfied that the result would have been the same if the testimony at issue had not been admitted (see CPLR 2002 ; Simon v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC, 170 A.D.3d 1227, 1233, 97 N.Y.S.3d 240 ).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to permit rebuttal testimony to refute the testimony of the defendants’ witness Jason Diaz (see Bank of N.Y. v. Spadafora, 92 A.D.3d 629, 630, 938 N.Y.S.2d 200 ). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MALTESE, GENOVESI and DOWLING, JJ., concur.